Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA.

MARRIED OFFICERS.

Sir J. D. REES: 1.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether he has any further information to give the House regarding the position of the married officer in the Indian Army, and the recognition of brevet rank, so far as pension is concerned?

The SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Montagu): As regards the first part of the question, I am not in a position to add anything to the answer I gave to the hon. and gallant Member for Devizes on the 22nd July last, of which I will send my hon. Friend a copy. The question of the recognition of brevet rank for pension purposes should he addressed to the Secretary of State for War, the rules for the Indian Army following those for the British Army in this respect.

Colonel Sir C. YATE: Is the status of the married officer in India now receiving consideration, or has the question been shelved?

Mr. MONTAGU: I would rather that my hon. and gallant Friend gave me notice. My impression is that a promise was given that the question would be considered when a permanent scale was being arranged. Perhaps my hon. and gallant Friend will give me notice, or I will write him on the subject.

PRESS LEGISLATION.

Sir J. D. REES: 2.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether he can now state what action the Government of
India have taken upon the Report of the Press Legislation Committee?

Mr. MONTAGU: A Bill based upon the Committee's recommendation was introduced in the Legislative Assembly on the 15th September.

AMRITSAR SHOOTING.

Sir J. D. REES: asked the Secretary of State for India whether the assessors appointed in that behalf have dealt with the claims put forward on behalf of those who lost their lives at Jallianwallah Bagh; and, if so, with what general results?

Mr. MONTAGU: I am informed that the Committee has not yet concluded its inquiry.

TRADE UNIONS.

Sir C. YATE: 4.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether, considering that many of the so-called trade unions in India are stated to be little more than strike committees, and in view of the acts of violence and intimidation which have characterised a large proportion of the disputes in which these committees have been concerned, it is the intention of the Government of India to proceed with legislation for the purpose of giving legal status to trade unions in India, and to define the law of agency in such a way that no act could be made the ground of a claim on trade union funds unless it was definitely proved that the governing body had sanctioned the act; and whether, having regard to the difficulty of obtaining definite proof in a country like India, and to the fact that the majority of these loose organisations publish no accounts and assign no functions to their governing body, he will consider the question of the unfairness to the rest of the community of either legalising picketing or of putting these so-called trade unions outside the law?

Mr. MONTAGU: The Government of India are considering the lines on which legislation should be undertaken for the registration and protection of trade unions and are consulting local governments with a view to submitting proposals. Pending receipt of actual proposals for legislation. I feel it would be premature to discuss the tentative conclusions on which the Government of India are cot suiting local governments.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is the question justified in saying that many of these trade unions are little more than "strike committees"?

Mr. MONTAGU: I am not responsible for the wording of the question.

SEDITIOUS LEAFLETS (INDIAN ARMY).

Sir C. YATE: 6.
asked the Secretary of State for India what steps have been taken to put a stop to the circulation of leaflets in India tampering with the loyalty of the Indian Army; how many of the authors and printers of these leaflets have been prosecuted and with what result; and whether any of those who signed these leaflets have been allowed to go free?

Mr. MONTAGU: This matter has engaged the close attention of the Government of India and local governments. I understand that the only leaflet of this nature that has come to notice has been proscribed under Section 12 of the Press Act. There were no signatures on the leaflet, though a few names were mentioned in it out of a very large numbers who are reported to have signed the "fatwa," extracts of which the leaflet purported to reproduce. The Press at Delhi, which printed the leaflet, has been ordered to give security, but has failed to do so, and has ceased working.

COLONEL AITKEN.

Lieut.-Colonel CROFT: 7.
asked the Secretary of State for India if he can now state what form of recompense it has been decided to give to Colonel Aitken, whose conduct in East Africa was vindicated a year ago and who for several years has suffered owing to his not being employed?

Mr. MONTAGU: Colonel Aitken is being permitted to retire with effect from 26th May, 1918, namely, the date on which he attained the age of 57, on the maximum pension of his rank, and is being granted the honorary rank of Brigadier-General on retirement.

RAILWAYS AND TRANSPORT SERVICE.

Major GLYN: 9.
asked the Secretary of State for India what action, if any, is being taken by his Department or the Government of India to hasten orders for machinery, materials, etc. required for railway and transport service in India of
a nature which at present cannot be manufactured in India now that the value of the rupee has more or less stabilised; and whether there are considerable arrears of orders usually placed in this country, due to unstable currency values, during the past two years?

Mr. MONTAGU: It is the case that, owing to unfavourable financial conditions of which exchange is only one factor, it has been found necessary in recent years to restrict railway expenditure to a lower amount than might otherwise have been deemed desirable, but orders have been, and are being, placed for machinery, etc. up to the limits of the funds allotted for expenditure on the services concerned.

Major GLYN: Can the right hon. Gentleman do anything to encourage orders from India in order to give work to men who are unemployed in this country?

Mr. MONTAGU: I am very anxious to do everything in my power to develop the resources of India. If some arrangement of mutual advantage to both countries can be devised I shall he only too delighted to do everything in my power to facilitate it.

Major GLYN: Will the right hon. Gentleman receive a deputation of workers?

Mr. MONTAGU: I am always at my hon. and gallant Friend's disposal.

Major GLYN: 10.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether he is in a position to make any statement as to the policy of the Government or of the Government of India which will give effect to some of the proposals contained in the Report of the Committee set up to inquire into the position of Indian railways; whether any limit of time has been put to the period of consideration by the Government of India in view of the urgency of some of the recommendations?

Mr. MONTAGU: I am not yet in a position to make a statement as to the policy arising out of the recommendations of the Indian Railway Committee. I have asked the Government of India for their general views on the Report, and it will be necessary to take the opinion of the Indian Legislature. I do not think it would be reasonable to impose any definite time limit for consideration but I can assure my hon. and
gallant Friend that I have been, and am now, in constant telegraphic communication with the Government of India on the more urgent matters reported on by the Committee with a view to action as soon as possible.

GOVERNMENT PRINTING.

Major GLYN: 11.
asked the Secretary of State for India how much money is each year spent by the Government of India and by the Provincial Governments upon printing; whether, if the habit of having each and every memorandum, minute, order, telegram, or other document printed was reduced, not only would a considerable financial saving be effected, but the secrecy and confidential character of official documents might be proportionately respected: whether a committee has been inquiring into the organisation and system of Government Departments in India; and whether this matter may be specially considered?

Mr. MONTAGU: The recent Government of India Secretariat Procedure Committee, while recognising that Indian conditions necessitate official printing on a larger scale than in England, made certain recommendations for economy, which the Government of India have endorsed. Special steps are taken to secure secrecy for confidential documents. The total expenditure on Government presses in India in the current estimates is roughly 75 lakhs, this figure including cost of staff, material, and stores. I would point out that the estimates of the Government of India and the several Provinces are now subjected to close scrutiny by the respective legislatures.

Major GLYN: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that no documents printed in India can be regarded as absolutely secret and that the only way in which documents can be kept secret is by having them type written?

Mr. MONTAGU: No. I am surprised to hear that.

AGITATORS (BIRTHPLACES).

Sir C. YATE: 12.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether Mohammed Ali and Shaukat Ali and the four others who it is reported have been convicted and sentenced to two years' rigorous imprisonment are by birth subjects of British
India or of native states; if the latter, of what states; and what is the birthplace and parentage of Mr. Gandhi?

Mr. MONTAGU: Mohammed Ali and Shaukat Ali are by birth subjects of the State of Rampur in the United Provinces. All the other accused are described as residents of places in British India. Mr. Gandhi's father was the Diwan of the State of Porebandar in Kathiawar.

Sir W. DAVISON: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of deporting Gandhi to his native State, to see whether that native State can deal with him?

Mr. SPEAKER: That does not arise out of the question.

MOPLAH REBELLION.

Captain Viscount CURZON: 13.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether the situation in Malabar shows as yet any sign of improvement or otherwise?

Mr. MONTAGU: I have not for some days past received any general review of the position. On the 27th October the Government of India reported that the General Officer Commanding the Madras District was satisfied with the situation, but needed more troops, which were being sent, in order to bring the operations to a close as soon as possible. The last received reports cover the four last days of October, and indicate that the troops and police are actively engaged in locating and capturing the rebels, who are still offering resistance, whenever they are met. In view of the difficulty of the country and the absence of communications, it is obvious that the complete pacification of the district must take time.

Viscount CURZON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the communiqué issued by the district magistrate on the 4th of November stated that a refugee, with ghastly wounds in the neck, had seen 50 Hindus beheaded and their bodies thrown into a well? Has he no information about this?

Mr. MONTAGU: I think that it would be more courteous if the Noble Lord had given me notice of a question of detail of that kind. I have stated to the House over and over again that there have been the most shocking atrocities committed by these rebels on loyal Hindu fellow subjects.

Viscount CURZON: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware of all the communiqués which are published in the Press, which are issued by the district magistrate? Do not all these things come to his notice in the ordinary course?

Mr. MONTAGU: To the best of my recollection every official telegram containing news on the subject of Malabar received in my office has been published, whether they are communications which have been issued in India or are reported by Reuter by the ordinary cable. There have been several telegrams from both sources reporting atrocities by the Moplahs. I cannot say offhand whether I have seen that particular telegram or whether it was an official communiqué.

Viscount CURZON: Is not the right hon. Gentleman's information six days old?

Mr. MONTAGU: No.

Lieut.-Colonel CROFT: In view of the violence of these crimes, will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability, according to precedent, of offering the Moplahs Dominion Home Rule?

Oral Answers to Questions — EX-SERVICE MEN.

ICDIA OFFICE (LEGAL ADVICES DEPARTMENT).

Captain LOSEBY: 8.
asked the Secretary of State for India if a Mr. H. A. Painter, a non-service man, was engaged by the India Office Legal Advices Department in September last at a salary of £200, rising to £250 per annum; if at the time of his engagement by the India Office he was in other employment; why no notification of the vacancy was posted on the staff side notice board in accordance with the promise given at the Departmental Whitley Council, and in consequence no member of the staff knew of, or had the opportunity of applying for, the vacancy; if he is aware of the fact that suitable unemployed candidates are available from ex-service men's associations; and what action he purposes taking in this matter?

Mr. MONTAGU: I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Chelsea on 2nd November. I believe it is the case that Mr. Painter was in employment up to the date of his appointment to the India
Office. The arrangement for notifying vacancies was meant for posts tenable by persons already members of the India Office Establishment, but the special object of this appointment was to obtain a man with outside experience of a special kind. I do not know what action the hon. and gallant Member contemplates.

Mr. RAPER: Will the right hon. Gentleman receive a deputation on the subject?

Mr. MONTAGU: I am particularly anxious, in making appointments in my Department, to consider the claims of ex-service men. If there is any feeling that anything prejudicial to their interest has been done I shall be glad to receive a deputation.

SMALL HOLDINGS, SCOTLAND.

Major M. WOOD: 37.
asked the Secretary for Scotland whether the Government has decided to treat applications for small holdings from ex-service men received after 1st March, 1921, as in the same category as others; if so, when this decision was reached, and when and in what manner it was brought to the notice of possible ex-service applicants; whether he is aware that many ex-service men have delayed their applications under the impression that there was no need for haste in view of the fact that thousands of their comrades who have made their applications three or four years ago have not yet gat holdings and whether he will suspend the,decision until all possible ex-service applicants have had adequate notice of it?

Mr. PRATT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Health, Scotland): The reply to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The decision of the Government on the subject was reached in January last, and was intimated by notice in the Press on the 13th of that month. With regard to the remainder of the question, my right hon. Friend is not aware that the position is as stated by my hon. and gallant Friend, and he cannot- undertake that the decision will be suspended?

Major WOOD: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that many ex-soldiers have just left hospital and that they will be deprived of the benefits of this particular Act?

Mr. PRATT: No, they will not be deprived of the benefits entirely. They will certainly lose their advantages under the Regulations as drawn on 1st March, but they can still tender an application.

Major WOOD: But is it not a matter of fact that they will not be considered as ex-service men if they apply now, and that they will be deprived of the benefit of ex-service men merely because they have been in hospital?

Mr. PRATT: That is just what I have endeavoured to say.

Mr. J. JONES: A land fit for heroes!

MENTAL TREATMENT INSTITUTIONS.

Captain LOSEBY: 43.
asked the Minister of Pensions the total number of lunatic asylums approved of by the Ministry of Pensions for ex-service men and the number of such approved institutions which are run for private gain?

The MINISTER of PENSIONS (Mr. Macpherson): Approximately 240 institutions are under the control of, or have been approved by, the Board of Control and the Ministry, and of these more than 60 are private establishments.

Captain LOSEBY: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell me, without notice, how many institutions there are other than pauper asylums and private licensed asylums approved of by his Department?

Mr. MACPHERSON: I cannot say offhand.

Captain LOSEBY: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell me whether there are any at all?

Mr. MACPHERSON: I cannot.

GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (DISMISSAL NOTICES).

Mr. RAPER: 56.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury how many disabled ex-service men are under notice of dismissal in each of the various Government Departments?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hilton Young): The number of disabled men who are at present under notice of discharge from Government Departments in London is, as far as can be ascertained, 126. This figure does not include those engaged in an industrial or manipulative
capacity, in respect of whom information is not immediately available. With the permission of the hon. Member, I will circulate details in the OFFICIAL REPORT. Except where the employment is of a casual character, the cases of these men are still under consideration, as a result of which a considerable proportion of them will certainly be found employment in other branches of the Departments in which they are engaged. In addition a smaller number of disabled men have received warning that one month after the date on which the warning was given they are liable to receive one month's notice of discharge. The same observations apply to these cases.

Mr. RAPER: Will the hon. Gentleman promise to do what he can for these unfortunate men? Will he cancel all notices of dismissal of disabled ex-service men while there are any non-service men and women being employed on the same work in the same Department?

Mr. YOUNG: It is impossible, consistently with the smooth and efficient working of the process of substitution, to give the undertaking to which my hon. Friend refers. He may rest assured that the special claim of disabled men is a matter of considerable concern to the Government.

Viscount CURZON: May I ask whether the discharge of these 126 disabled ex-service men is one of the first-fruits of the application of the. Anti-waste League?

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Gentleman is now debating the question.

The following are the details promised by Mr. Young:


Admiralty
62


War Office
11


Post Office
9


India Office
9


Food Department
8


Ministry of Labour
6


Department of Overseas Trade
6


Disposal and Liquidation Commission
5


Air Ministry
4


Ministry of Agriculture
3


Department of Inland Revenue
3



126

Mr. HOPKINS: 58.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that, in Block C of the Disposal Board, 25 ex-service men and a war widow have received notice of dismissal, while 13 men and women without war service are being retained; and will he inquire into the matter?

Mr. YOUNG: I have made inquiry into this matter, and have ascertained that of the 13 non-service personnel referred to, three are being substituted by ex-service men, four are permanent civil servants, and the remaining six are juniors, engaged on elementary work, whose retention has recently been agreed to by the Departmental Substitution Committee, which includes the ex-service men's representative.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY.

BANDS (CIVILIAN ENGAGEMENTS).

Mr. JESSON: 14.
asked the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that the Musicians' Union, which represents over 90 per cent. of the professional musicians of this country, and which strongly objects to the unfair competition with them of military and service bands, agreed to waive this objection provided Army bands were not allowed to undercut the rates that had been agreed upon between the members of the Musicians' Union and their employers; that his representatives concerned at the War Office met representatives of the Musicians' Union and gave this undertaking, and also agreed with them as to the minimum rates Army bands should charge when quoting for engagements in competition with professional musicians; that, despite this honourable undertaking, the agreement was broken by his representatives without any further consultation or communication with the representatives of the Musicians' Union who were loyally carrying it out; and that Army bandmasters are now allowed to quote any terms they think fit when canvassing for civilian engagements; and whether he will take steps to have this undertaking carried out in future?

The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Sir Laming Worthington-Evans): I beg to refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for Houghton-le-Spring on 3rd May last. That answer
indicated that Army bandmasters are not allowed to quote any terms they think fit, but are bound to charge fair rates which shall in no circumstances undercut civil bands. If the hon. Member will be good enough to bring to my notice any instance in which it is considered that these explicit instructions have been violated I will at once have it investigated.

Mr. JESSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that instances have been brought to the notice of his Department?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: No, I am not. If my hon. Friend will give me notice of any instances I will look into them.

Mr. JESSON: Will the right hon. Gentleman state what other useful purpose the officials of this particular Department serve, except to warn the public of the confusion and unrest that would be caused in the labour world if they interfered in every other trade and profession in the same way?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: That is a long question to arise out of my answer.

Mr. JESSON: 15.
asked the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that, notwithstanding the present abnormal unemployment in the country, the proprietors of the West Pier, Brighton, have discharged their permanent orchestra and are engaging relays of military bands in its place on the grounds that these bands, are much cheaper than those composed of professional musicians, and this notwithstanding the fact that the professional musicians concerned have offered to accept reductions in their salaries of 18s. and 20s. per week; whether he has considered the effect such unfair competition would have upon the present labour unrest if his Department allowed military units to compete in the same way with every other trade and profession in the country; and whether he proposes to abolish this unfair competition, or at least see that the rates agreed upon between professional musicians and their employers are not undercut by Army bands?

The SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Captain Guest): I have been asked to reply to this question. The Royal Air Force band was engaged by the proprietors of the West Pier, Brighton, at a
fee which is considerably in excess of that for which civilian bands are obtainable. I am informed that the engagement followed the completion of a 3½years' contract and was entered into by the proprietors owing to their wish to revert to the pre-War practice of engaging service hands.

Mr. MILLS: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman not aware that many of these men are compelled to draw unemployment pay from the State because things like this are happening?

Captain GUEST: That has nothing to do with the original question.

Mr. MILLS: They are already employed by the Army in one capacity. Why should they compete with civilians outside their military duties?

Captain GUEST: That has no relation to Question 15, to which I have just replied.

WAR MEDALS.

Colonel BURN: 17.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether any decision has been arrived at regarding clasps for the medals in commemoration of the great War?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: This matter is still under consideration.

Colonel BURN: Surely some decision can be arrived at three years after the War? Many of the men entitled to these clasps will be dead, otherwise.

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I can assure my hon. and gallant Friend that a decision will be reached as soon as possible, but it is a very important matter and a very expensive matter, as he realises, and I must ask that time he given to the consideration of it.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: 21.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether, in the granting of the British war medal to troops engaged in the United Kingdom, consideration will be given to the personnel manning anti-aircraft guns and searchlights in Kent, Essex, and London, many of whom were in action against enemy aircraft on more than 50 occasions?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: As already stated in reply to previous ques-
tions, it was decided, after the fullest consideration, that a War medal should not be granted for Home Service, with the exception that the British War medal should be awarded to the personnel of Coast Defence batteries actually engaged with hostile vessels during the War.

2ND COUNTY OF LONDON YEOMANRY (HEADQUARTERS).

Colonel BURN: 19.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that on the occasion of the use of the headquarters of the 2nd County of London Yeomanry in Elverton Street, Westminster, by the Australian Forces during the late War a very definite agreement was entered into regarding compensation to be made for such use of the premises; that the amount of such compensation was definitely and finally agreed by the officials of the Australian Forces with the parties concerned at £1,766; that since June, 1919, when the War Office took over all liabilities in connection with the property under arrangements made directly with that Department, and including the payment of the sum of £1,766, it has been found impossible to secure any satisfaction of the claim notwithstanding innumerable reminders sent on the subject; and that the continued delay of the War Office in effecting a settlement of a definitely agreed amount of compensation is likely to cause still further expense to the public through a further claim now being in course of preparation to cover the subsequent period; and whether instructions will be at once given that immediate settlement of the first portion of the agreed amount, namely, £1,766, is to be made?

Lieut.-Colonel STANLEY: I have ascertained by reference to the Australian Force authorities that the amount claimed as compensation by the Territorial Force Association, namely, £1,766. was not considered or agreed to by them. On the contrary the claim, which was in the form of an estimate, was passed by the Australian Force authorities to the War Office without comment on the day after receipt, namely, on 28th August, 1919. On examination, the War Department found it necessary to reduce the estimated claim to £1,334, which amount covered both the period of occupation by the Australian Forces and the subsequent period of occupation by the Navy and Army Canteen Board, referred to in the last part
of the question. The local military authorities proposed settlement at £1,334 to the Association in February last, but this proposal was refused. I regret the delay that has occurred in dealing with the case, which is a very complicated one, and if the Territorial Force Association are now prepared to accept £1,334, without prejudice to further consideration of the matter, payment will be made forthwith.

Colonel BURN: Is it not the case that all the delay which is occurring increases the liability of the War Office?

Lieut.-Colonel STANLEY: Undoubtedly.

WAR GRAVES.

The following question stood on the Order Paper in the name of Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSON:
20. To ask the Secretary of State for War if he can see his way to make representations to the War Graves Commission that they should provide for the insertion of the soldier's age on the official record and not in the limited space reserved for relatives' inscriptions.

Mr. THOMSON: This question has been postponed, by request. When will the right hon. Gentleman be able to give a reply?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-.EVANS: The Imperial War Graves Commission is meeting shortly, I think next week, and after that I shall be able to announce a decision.

MACGREGOR v. LORD ADVOCATE.

Mr. HOGGE: 16.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the case of Duncan Gregor Macgregor V. the Lord Advocate and another in which Macgregor sued for damages sustained by being run down by a motor car belonging to the War Department; whether he is aware that this action failed solely because of the theory that the Crown can do no wrong; whether his attention has been directed to the observations of the judges in the Second Division; whether he is aware that Macgregor is one of a family of nine brothers, all of whom served in the War; that he is very severely and permanently injured; that he has been so far put to
very heavy charges for medicine and surgical treatment, and that his medical career has been seriously interrupted: and whether, in all the circumstances, as no action can lie in Law, he is prepared to consider an ex gratia allowance to Macgregor?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Lieut.-Colonel Stanley): The opinions of the judges in this case were directed solely to the question whether an action for compensation for injury can lie against the Crown. It is not the practice of the Department to rely on its legal immunity and to refuse to pay compensation for injuries which have been caused by the wrongful acts of its servants. But in the present case, which has been carefully investigated by the Department, I am advised that the driver of the motor car was in no way to blame for the accident, and I am not prepared to make an ex gratia allowance to Mr. Macgregor.

Mr. HOGGE: Is it actually the case that the same practice obtains in Scotland as in the rest of the country, and is it not rather the fact that in Scotland there can lie no action against the Crown, whereas in England the Treasury defends these cases on behalf of the service, and a case is actionable?

Lieut.-Colonel STANLEY: I am afraid that is a legal question which I am not competent to answer.

Mr. HOGGE: Could my hon. and gallant Friend tell us how, without trial, he can state definitely to the House that the driver of the vehicle was not to blame?

Lieut.-Colonel STANLEY: Because the whole of the circumstances of the case were inquired into.

Mr. HOGGE: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that this case has been not only before the ordinary Courts in Scotland, but before the Appeal Court, and that the decision of the judges was solely as to the question that the Crown could do no wrong, and that they, in giving their decision, remarked on the hardship to this man, who fought right through the War, who was one of nine brothers who fought, and that the judges regretted that he had not the access to the law that the ordinary citizen had?

Mr. SPEAKER: That is the question already put by the hon. Member.

Major MACKENZIE WOOD: Is not the question of the responsibility of the driver a matter for the Courts, and not for the War Office, and will the hon. and gallant Gentleman not see that the matter is brought before the Courts, so that the Courts will have an opportunity of giving a decision on the legal question?

Lieut.-Colonel STANLEY: My information is that the whole question was inquired into carefully. The driver was held not to have been responsible.

Major WOOD: Who was it that held the driver was not responsible?

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Member had better put down that question.

Mr. HOGGE: I shall raise the question on the Adjournment.

Oral Answers to Questions — NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

NORTHANTS REGIMENT (PRIVATE S. PETERS).

Captain BOWYER: 18.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will inquire into the case of Mr. S. Peters, late No. 3937, private, 1st Northants Regiment, who enlisted in 1893 and, after serving in India, fell sick, and suddenly, whilst on guard, became deaf and dumb; is he aware that this man was discharged with a pension of 7d. per day for 18 months and beyond this has had no pension at all; that he is a married man with five little children dependent on him; and will he take steps to have the proper award of pension, with arrears, paid to Mr. Peters?

Lieut.-Colonel STANLEY: I am informed that Private Peters was discharged medically unfit with the pension and in the circumstances stated, but it is necessary also to point out that he had served in the Army for six years only, and that in the opinion of the medical authorities his disability was not caused or aggravated by military service or climate. Private Peters' records indicate that he was married after discharge and when already suffering from his dis-
ability. I much regret his circumstances, but the case is not one where an equitable claim to further assistance from Army funds can be made out.

PENSIONS REFUSED.

Major BIRCHALL: 44
asked the Minister of Pensions whether the refusal of Appeal Court 23 to grant a pension to Mrs. Wadsworth, of St. Agnes Mount, Leeds, was clue to the failure of the local doctor in the first instance to recognise her son's illness as due to Addison's disease; and whether, as there is evidence to show that the deceased soldier was suffering from this fatal but rare disease on discharge and continuously thereafter until he died, he will have the inquiry reopened?

Colonel GIBBS (Treasurer of the Household): The appeal of the mother of the late Private Thomas Wadsworth, Labour Corps, 281399, was heard on the 1st instant by a pensions appeal tribunal sitting at Leeds. After giving the fullest possible consideration to the evidence of the appellant and that contained in the documents, the tribunal came to the conclusion that the appeal mast be disallowed. The fact that the local doctor in the first instance failed to recognise deceased's illness as due to Addison's disease in no way affected the decision. The tribunal were not satisfied upon the evidence that the disease commenced during service. Section 8 of the War Pensions (Administrative Provisions) Act, 1919, provides that the decision of a tribunal shall be final.

Sir W. DAVISON: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether this young man was employed in the building industry?

Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: 53.
asked the Minister of Pensions, in regard to the case of Hugh Ralph, Bridgeton, reference No. 1/MR./2952, whether the medical board appointed by the Ministry definitely found that the soldier was suffering from disability due to varicose veins which had been aggravated by service, although it was doubtful to what precise degree it had been aggravated; whether the pre-War doctor of the soldier certified that to his knowledge he did not suffer from varicose veins before enlistment and his general health was good; on what medical grounds did the Ministry upset the finding of its own medical board and
refuse the pension; whether it is the practice of the Ministry to reject the findings of its own medical boards without expert medical advice obtained after a fresh examination? and whether any further medical examination was made before the case was submitted to the appeal tribunal?

Mr. MACPHERSON: This man was discharged from the Army early in 1915. It was not till March, 1920, that he applied for a pension on account of varicose veins. The medical board which examined him said that the disability had been aggravated by service, but added, "it is not clear if the present degree of disablement is due to aggravation from service or post-demobilisation." The Ministry had to consider all the relevant facts before granting pension. They rejected the claim, and their rejection has been upheld by the Pensions Appeal Tribunal. whose decision is, by Act of Parliament, declared to be final. I may remind my hon. Friend that entitlement to pension is not solely a medical question, a fact which has been recognised by Parliament in the composite character of the statutory tribunals by whom appeals against rejection are heard and decided.

Mr. SCOTT: I did not quite catch the answer. Did the medical board which examined the man find definitely that his disablement had been aggravated by service, although it was uncertain to what degree the aggravation amounted?

Mr. MACPHERSON: There is a distinction between assessment of pension and entitlement. It is no part of a medical board's duty to consider the question of entitlement; its duty is to assess.

Mr. SCOTT: Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that I did not ask any question about entitlement at all? I asked merely whether the board did find, as a matter of fact, that the man's disablement was aggravated by service?

Mr. MACPHERSON: My hon. Friend could not have heard my answer. I said that the medical board which examined the man said that the disability had been aggravated by service, but added "it is not clear if the present degree of disablement is due to aggravation from service or post-demobilisation."

HONG KONG (TREATMENT OF CHILDREN).

Major BIRCHALL: 24.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has yet received any report from the Commission set up in Hong Kong in reference to the system of mui tsai; and, if not, when he expects to receive a report?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Edward Wood): I presume my hon. and gallant Friend refers to the Commission recently set up by the Governor to enquire into the industrial employment of children in Hong Kong and which bears no special reference to muit sai. Its report has not yet been received, but I understand that it should be available shortly.

Lieut.-Colonel J. WARD: Is there any intention whatever of moving in reference to muit sai in Hong Kong? Surely the buying and selling of children under the British flag ought to be abolished?

Mr. WOOD: If I have heard my hon. and gallant Friend rightly I do not think he could have appreciated what I said in my reply, which was that the question into which the Commission was to inquire had no reference to the question of muit sai, on which, as he knows, there is a great deal to be said.

Mr. G. MURRAY: Of whom is the Commission to be composed?

Mr. SPEAKER: Notice must be given of that question.

PROLETARIAN SUNDAY SCHOOLS.

Mr. G. MURRAY: 26.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been drawn to the seditious doctrines taught in the proletarian Sunday schools, which undermine the youth and adults of this country by the teaching of revolution, rebellion to the Crown, and such teachings as that Christ is a failure; whether there is any legislation under which these schools may be closed; and, if not, whether the Government will consider the desirability of introducing legislation which will enable them to do so and abolish this source of danger to the Constitution?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Shortt): My attention has been drawn to the existence of such schools. There is no power to close them, and I am afraid I cannot hold out any hope that legislation will be undertaken.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in these schools ethical doctrines are taught as sound as any doctrine could be?

Mr. MURRAY: In view of the teaching in these schools, does the right hon. Gentleman not think it is important to have a special branch of the police to deal with them?

Mr. W. THORNE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that one of the songs sung in these Sunday schools is, "England, arise!"

Mr. SHORTT: I am not aware of that.

Mr. MURRAY: Is the right hon. Gentleman also aware—

Mr. SPEAKER: These bits of information had better be given outside.

POLICE COURT CLERKS (PRESS COMMUN ICATIONS).

Mr. RAPER: 27.
asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that on a recent occasion the chief clerk of a Metropolitan Police Court communicated to the newspaper Press, in his official capacity, on a controversial matter such as licensing hours and drunkenness; and can he take any steps to stop such practices?

Mr. SHORTT: I am making inquiries, and will communicate further with the hon. Member.

POLICE PENSIONS.

Sir J. REMNANT: asked the Home Secretary whether a person who served during the War in a police force attached to a Government munition factory would be entitled to reckon such service as approved service for pension under Section 10 (iii) of the Police Pensions Act, 1921?

Mr. SHORTT: The answer is in the negative.

WEYMOUTH INSTITUTE.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: asked the Home Secretary whether he will have a full inquiry conducted by non-official people into the management and conduct of the new Weymouth Institute, alias Portland Prison, where the boy Bucking ham committed suicide and other attempted escapes have occurred?

Mr. SHORTT: The Medical Inspector of Prisons and Dr. Pearson, who has special experience of Borstal inmates, visited the Portland Institution last week, and, in consultation with the Visiting Committee, inquired into the arrangements of the institute and the medical care and treatment of the inmates. I hope to have their report shortly. I also hope to visit the institution very shortly with my hon. and gallant Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary. I will then consider whether any further inquiry is necessary.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: In view of these two suicides—I understand since my question was put down there has been another case—and the number of attempts to escape from this institution, would it not be possible to have an independent inquiry?

Mr. SHORTT: I have told the hon. and gallant Member I intend to visit the institution, and I will consider whether it is necessary to have an inquiry. As far as the attempted escapes are concerned. I do not attach great importance to them. Our system is to give the boys a great deal of freedom in order to try to develop their sense of honour, and, of course, you will get cases of attempted escapes. As to the cases of suicide, that, of course, is an entirely different matter.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Can you combine the Borstal system, which is intended to give a certain amount of liberty, with Portland Prison, which was established and organised for quite other purposes?

Mr. SHORTT: Yes. The girls have been most successful in the Ailesbury Convict Prison for some time.

DISTURBANCES (LONDON).

Sir W. DAVISON: 30.
asked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to the fact that a ticket meeting under the auspices of the British Empire
Union, held at the Central Hall, Westminster, on the 28th October, was broken up by a Communist and Sinn Fein mob who gained admission by forged tickets, the principal speaker, the Earl of Derby, being howled down and prevented from speaking, while German stink-bombs were thrown among the audience, the platform being ultimately stormed and the Union Jack torn down and trampled on to the accompaniment of the singing of rebel songs; whether any of those who broke up the meeting have been apprehended by the police; whether he is taking any action to prevent law-abiding citizens from being attacked by seditious mobs; and whether it is with his approval that the Sinn Fein flag receives police protection in London but not the Union Jack?

Mr. SHORTT: It was understood that admission to this meeting was to be by ticket only, but a party of police patrolled outside and was augmented at 8 p.m. At 8.50 p.m. the officer in charge was informed by the Secretary to the Central Hall authorities that men inside the building were attempting to storm the platform and damage the flags, and he feared that some persons would be assaulted. The officer in charge immediately entered the building with his force of police, ejected the ringleaders, and the others left. No persons were arrested. The duties of the police are confined to entering a building when called upon to prevent breaches of the peace, or to arrest persons charged with offences for which there is power to arrest. The police take action in the streets to prevent law-abiding citizens being attacked, whether by seditious mobs or any other person. The suggestion at the end of the question is unfounded.

Sir W. DAVISON: Can the right hon. Gentleman explain then, why a man was recently arrested in Whitehall for seizing a Sinn Fein flag and no one was arrested when the police were called into this hall where a mob was engaged in tearing down and trampling underfoot the Union Jack?

Mr. SHORTT: I have already given the details of the case.

Mr. DEVLIN: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether it is a fact, that the followers of the hon. Member for South Kensington (Sir W. Davison) a short
time ago, entered a public hall where a labour meeting was being held and mobbed the meeting and assaulted the speakers with the approval of the hon. Member and his friends?

Viscount CURZON: 34.
asked the Home Secretary whether the police have carried out any investigation to ascertain who was responsible for the recent encounter between the police and the unemployed in Shaftesbury Avenue and Piccadilly Circus, and as to who was responsible for breaking up the recent meeting of the British Empire Union at the Central Hall; if so, with what result; do their investigations disclose the payment to certain individuals of sums of money to produce these results; and, if so, from what sources, both in these and other cases?

Mr. SHORTT: The Commissioner of Police is of opinion that the disturbance in Shaftesbury Avenue and Piccadilly Circus was a spontaneous outbreak on the part of the procession when they learned they would not he allowed to proceed to Trafalgar Square to hold a meeting. I have dealt in reply to a previous question with the disturbance in the Central Hall. The police believe that that disturbance was engineered by Communists, but they have no evidence of what particular person or persons were responsible, or of the payment of money to any persons.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: What is the use of keeping up this expensive Department?

Viscount CURZON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it was publicly stated in the Press that aliens were responsible for the encounters in Shaftesbury Avenue and Piccadilly Circus, and also for what took place in the Central Hall, and has he any evidence to substantiate that?

Mr. SPEAKER: The right hon. Gentleman is not responsible for the public Press.

Mr. DEVLIN: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us what is the British Empire Union?

Sir W. DAVISON: Why were no arrests made on either of these occasions?

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: What is the use of this expensive Department if it cannot prevent occurrences of this sort?

ST. ANDREWS MENTAL HOSPITAL (NORTHAMPTON).

Mr. MYERS: 31.
asked the Home Secretary whether it has been brought to his notice that the Lunacy Board of Control have been informed of allegations made against the administration of St. Andrew's Mental Hospital, Northampton; and whether, in face of the fact that the general public are at present much exercised about the management of mental hospitals, particularly private ones, he will order a very strict inquiry to be made into the matter?

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Sir Alfred Mond): A number of complaints have been made to the Board of Control as to the dismissal from this institution of certain officers, and in connection with these some general allegations have been made in regard to administration. The Board have informed the complainants that they have no power to intervene between the Committee and their servants, but that they would give careful consideration to any complaints as to the treatment of patients which might be brought before them. The hospital was visited and thoroughly inspected by two commissioners on the 16th and 17th May last, and they reported that the institution continued to be very well maintained, that all the patients were seen and were found to be properly and kindly cared for.

POLICE (WATERPROOF SUITS).

Viscount CURZON: 33.
asked the Home Secretary whether he will consider providing police constables on point duty with white overalls or oilskins, such as are worn in certain cities in the country?

Mr. SHORTT: An improved waterproof suit is being introduced for the use of men on point duty in wet weather. White overalls are not considered suitable for point duty under the conditions of London traffic.

Viscount CURZON: Before coming to a final decision in the matter, will the right hon. Gentleman inquire into what
is done in the City of Manchester, for instance? I understand the police there wear white overalls when on point duty.

Mr. J. JONES: May we not have exemption of Members of Parliament for overrunning people?

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND.

TEACHERS SUPERANNUATION.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: 35.
asked the Secretary for Scotland whether the education authority for Scotland has in two of the cases after-mentioned refused, and in the other two cases has indicated that they are about to refuse, to pay the lump sum payable under their superannuation scheme of 1919 to retiring schoolmasters, to Duncan McNaught, J.P., LL.D., Kilmaurs Parish, Ayrshire, Thomas G. Meldrum, Kilmuir Easter, Ross-shire, John Thomson, New Spynie, Elgin, and Thomas Wilson, Roberton, Roxburgh; that these four are the four surviving parochial schoolmasters appointed, ad vitam aut culpam, prior to the Education Act of 1872, who, in the case of Mr. McNaught and Mr. Wilson recently retired, and in the other two cases are on the point of retiring, having fulfilled the duties of their offices till about the ages of 77, 76, 76, and 75 years respectively; that the ground of the said refusal is that they did not ask for leave to teach after reaching the age of 65; that in respect of their life appointments no such leave was necessary or, if necessary, they could not be expected to know of the need of such leave, it not being brought to their notice in connection with a superannuation scheme instituted many years after they each had reached the prescribed age of 65; and whether he will recall the decision or cause the education authority to recall their decision above stated?

Mr. PRATT: The facts are substantially as stated in my hon. Friend's question. The refusal, however, in the two cases to which reference is made was not based solely on the ground that is indicated, but took cognisance also of the discretionary powers vested in the Department by Article 20 of the Superannuation Scheme. It did not appear to the Department to be either necessary or expedient to award benefits under that scheme to teachers who, after
enjoying their full emoluments for some ten years beyond the normal limit, are now drawing from public funds superannuation allowances equal in amount to two-thirds of their full salary at retirement. I can therefore only reply to the last part of my hon. Friend's question in the negative.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Does not the hon. Gentleman see that these men saved the ratepayers' and taxpayers' money by serving until they were 75 or 77 years of age, and that he is actually penalising them for doing their duty by giving them less than other teachers who retired at 65 years of age?

Mr. J. JONES: Make them Cabinet Ministers.

Mr. A. SHAW: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that Mr. Duncan McNaught is the greatest living authority on the important subject of the life of Robert Burns, and was it not greatly to the public advantage in Scotland that he should have gone on for this extra number of years teaching the children of Scotland? Why is he penalised?

Mr. PRATT: I am fully aware that Mr. Duncan McNaught is one of the greatest authorities on Burns in Scotland.

Mr. SHAW: The greatest.

Mr. PRATT: I have no doubt that was in the mind of the Department when this was refused.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that these four teachers are survivors of the old Scottish system of education, which gained for Scotland a reputation in educational matters that even all subsequent legislation on education has not been able to destroy?

WHEAT AND OATS (SUBSIDY).

Major M. WOOD: 36.
asked the Secretary for Scotland whether his attention has been directed to the uncertainty still existing in the minds of farmers in Scotland as to the payment of the £4 per acre of oats under the Corn Production Acts (Repeal) Act in cases where there has been a change of tenancy; whether it was the intention of the Government that the whole sum of £4 should be paid in respect of this year and no part in
respect of the next three years; and what will be the result where a valuation in assessing the value of the way-going crop has taken no account of this payment and no mention of it was made in the submission to him?

Mr. PRATT: My right hon. Friend is aware that some uncertainty exists, although Section 3 of the Corn Production Act, 1917, contains specific provisions as to the persons entitled to receive the payment referred to in cases where there has been a change of tenancy. The payment is made solely in respect of the crop of 1921. As regards the last part of the question, my right hon. Friend can only refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the statutory direction as regards assessment of compensation contained in Sub-section (1) (b) of the Section already cited.

COMMITTEE ON RATING (REPORT).

Colonel Sir A. SPROT: 38.
asked the Secretary for Scotland when a report from Lord Dunedin's Committee on Rating in Scotland may be expected?

Mr. PRATT: I understand that the Committee have not finished hearing evidence, and I cannot yet state when the report is likely to be completed.

FRANCE AND TURKEY.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: 45.
asked the Prime Minister whether the terms of the recent agreement between the French Government and the Turkish Nationalist Government of Angora have been communicated to His Majesty's Government; whether they will be laid upon the Table of the House; and what steps have been taken to safeguard opportunities for British enterprise and commerce in the. territories handed over to Turkish control.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Cecil Harmsworth): The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The question of the official publication of the agreement is dependent on the permission of the French Government, who are being consulted. The only territory handed over to Turkish control which would not have come under such control under the Treaty of Sevres is a strip of
territory along the north Syrian frontier in which no British commercial interests appear to be involved.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Has the hon. Gentleman seen the repeated statements that very valuable exclusive concessions have been promised to French capitalists, and is the situation being watched from the point of view of English capitalists?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: My hon. and gallant Friend asked me a question about a particular strip of territory, and I have confined my answer to that.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Does not my question refer to the recent agreement, and is the Government satisfied that British commercial rights are not infringd in the other parts of Turkey under the agreement?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I hate said nothing as to that.

Lord ROBERT CECIL: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether he expects the answer of the French Government as to the publication of this Treaty before the rising of the House?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: Obviously I cannot say, but I hope so.

Sir C. OMAN: Is not a part of the Bagdad Railway now a part of the frontier in question, and therefore are not British commercial interests affected?

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE.

AIR-MAIL SERVICES.

Mr. RAPER: 40.
asked the Postmaster-General if, in order to assist British civil aviation, he will take steps to make an issue of aerial postage stamps?

The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Kellaway): I am considering how far wider publicity can be given to existing air-mail services with a view to increasing public interest in the traffic; hut, as at present advised, I do not think that the issue of a special postage stamp would have the effect desired by the hon. Member. A blue air-mail label, to be affixed to air-mail correspondence, is already issued on application at all head and branch post offices. Letters can be posted
for the air mail in any letter box and at any time; and it would obviously hamper the free use of the service if only air-mail stamps could be used.

Mr. RAPER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the fact that already in France they are issuing special aerial postage stamps and that it has been very helpful to the service?

Mr. KELLAWAY: I shall be glad to consider that, but I hope my hon. Friend will also consider the point I have put.

WEST OF ENGLAND MAILS.

Mr. PENNEFATHER: 41.
asked the Postmaster-General if his attention has been drawn to the injury to the interests of the trade of Liverpool, and consequently to employment, in that city, caused by the recent fixing of 4 p.m. as the latest hour for posting letters and circulars to the West of England; and will he alter the hour so that it may at least be possible to convey by mail the closing quotations of the Liverpool corn and other markets and the cable news received during the afternoon?

Mr. KELLAWAY: There has been some misunderstanding. Before the 3rd of October the time of posting at Liverpool for letters sent via Bristol for Certain places beyond, to secure the first morning delivery, was 4 p.m. On the 3rd of October the railway company instituted a train between Crewe and Bristol which appeared to justify a later despatch from Liverpool. The time of posting was therefore extended from 4 p.m. (or 4.30 with late fee) to 5.45 p.m. (or 6.15 with late fee). It was subsequently found that the new train frequently did not keep time and that the connection with the first morning delivery could not be relied upon. The Postmaster of Liverpool thereupon issued a notice to this effect in order that merchants and others might be aware of the risk involved in the use of the supplementary despatch. The attention of the railway companies has been directed to the inconvenience caused by the late running of the train.

Mr. PENNEFATHER: Will the right hon. Gentleman use his influence to obtain a later delivery for these important letters and thereby assist trade and employment in the Port of Liverpool?

Mr. KELLAWAY: That is the point on which I am still negotiating with the
railway company. If they can keep the train up to time it will be possible to give the later delivery.

CIRCULARS.

Major M. WOOD: 42.
asked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that post offices have refused to allow paper-maker's circulars to be sent at the special printed paper rates, because the circulars had printed on them, "This is a sample of our paper"; that firms are thereby being handicapped in their efforts to push trade; and whether he can see his way to order that such circulars are not to be treated as samples?

Mr. KELLAWAY: I am aware that post offices have refused to allow circulars to be sent at the special printed paper rate because the circulars had printed upon them "This is a sample of our paper." Under the published Regulations, samples are not admissible at the printed paper rate, and I cannot hold that these patterns, which are described by the senders as samples, are not such, nor can I alter the Regulations to admit samples of paper, but no others. The answer to the first part of the question is, yes, Sir. As these papers are admittedly samples, I cannot agree not to treat them as such.

Major WOOD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that they are not admitted as samples?

Mr. KELLAWAY: The hon. and gallant Gentleman's question states that the circulars had printed on them, "This is a sample of our paper."

PEACE TREATIES (GERMAN REPARATION).

Mr. WISE: 46.
asked the Prime Minister whether the arrangement is concluded and has been approved by the French Government and Germany for the payment in kind of 7,000,000,000 marks reparation to France; what are the terms; and was the British Government consulted?

Mr. YOUNG: My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer must refer my hon. Friend to the White Paper on this subject promised in his answer of the 24th October to the hon. Member for Newcastle East (Major Barnes), which will, I understand, be
available to-day. As the hon. Member will see from the White Paper, the French Government have, in accordance with the terms of the Agreement, submitted it for approval to the Reparation Commission, who have in turn referred it to the Governments represented thereon.

Mr. LAMBERT: 49.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer to what fund have the German payments of £5,444,000 for coal, £38,704,000 for costs of Army of Occupation, and £4,368,000 for ships been credited; what is the total amount of German reparation payments due to Great Britain under the Treaty of Versailles; when the next German reparation payment is due; and what are the amounts payable to the Allies and Great Britain, respectively?

Mr. YOUNG: With the permission of the hon. Member, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will circulate his reply in the OFFICIAL REPORT, as it is inevitably somewhat lengthy.

The following is the reply:

Of the sum of £5,544,000 received in repayment of the advances under the German Coal Deliveries Agreement, £5,500,000 has been appropriated in aid of the Vote for advances under that Agreement and the balance has been paid to the Exchequer. (My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer regrets that the figure of £5,444,000 given in his reply to the hon. and gallant Member for the Central Division of Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) on the 18th ultimo was inaccurate, the correct figure being £5,544,000.) Out of the sum of £38,704,000 received up to the 30th September last on account of this country's claim for cost of armies of occupation, the, sum of £6,413,000 has been paid into the Exchequer as "special receipts," and the balance is being held by the Treasury in a Suspense Account pending payment to the Exchequer on the final ratification of the Financial Agreement signed at Paris on 13th August last. The sum of £4,368,000 is receivable hereafter in respect of ships sold; when received it will be paid into the Exchequer.

The Reparation Commission fixed at 132 milliards of gold marks (subject to certain adjustments) the total amount to be paid by Germany for reparation. The
Treaty provides that the amounts received are to be divided by the Allied and Associated Governments in proportions determined upon by them. The British Empire proportion was fixed by the Spa Agreement at 22 per cent. of the receipts from Germany, the remainder being distributed as follows>:—France 52 per cent., Italy 10 per cent., Japan 75 per cent., Belgium 8 per cent., Portugal 75 per cent., and 6.5 per cent. was reserved for Greece, Roumania, the Serb Croat Slovene State and other powers entitled to reparation which were not signatories of the Agreement.

The Reparation Commission prescribed by the Schedule of Payments of May last that Germany was to pay to the Reparation Commission a fixed annuity of two milliard gold marks and a variable annuity equal to 26 per cent. of German exports, both in quarterly instalments, to provide for interest and Sinking Fund payments in respect of the Bonds to be delivered by Germany to the Commission by way of security for and acknowledgment of her debt, and issued as therein provided. The quarterly instalment of the variable annuity which is due on 15th November is estimated to be covered by deliveries in kind and receipts under the Reparation (Recovery) Act. The next payment due, therefore, is the sum of 500,000,000 gold marks (being the third quarterly instalment of the fixed annuity) which is due on 15th January next. On the assumption that the British cost of occupation will have been covered by that date, this sum will be payable to Belgium in respect of her priority.

CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES (CAPITAL OUTLAY).

Mr. G. MURRAY: 47.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, with a view to reducing public expenditure in any one year, he has examined the Civil Service Estimates from the point of view that, as at present framed, considerable expenditure by, for instance, the Admiralty, the War Office, and the Board of Works is capital expenditure, which should be spread over a number of years instead of being a charge upon the current revenue in a single year; whether he will consider the desirability of framing the Budget more in accordance with business principles in this respect; and whether he will cause inquiry to be made
as to whether the efficiency and up-to-dateness of the Admiralty dockyards, for instance, would be improved if this method were introduced; apart from the main issue of relieving the taxpayer from paying in a single year for items which represent capital outlay, and should therefore be met by special short-term loans of, say, five to ten years?

Mr. YOUNG: The question of the form in which the Budget is presented, and in particular whether expenditure of a capital nature should be met from loans and not from revenue, has frequently been discussed in this House. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is certainly prepared to consider the question anew and will bear in mind the hon. Member's suggestions. He must, however, point out that alterations of form of the kind suggested do not in themselves reduce public expenditure by one penny, and do not reduce the amount of cash which the Exchequer has to find in any given year. Moreover, the loan commitments of the Government in the near future are already so heavy as to make it very doubtful whether it would be wise to add to them.

Mr. MURRAY: With regard to the last part of the question, which the hon. Gentleman has not answered, will he say whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer will appoint a Committee of Inquiry into the Admiralty dockyards with a view to ascertaining whether the results which I have indicated in my question would not be obtained?

Mr. YOUNG: No. My hon. Friend will hardly expect me to give an undertaking of that sort in a matter which is occupying my right hon. Friend's attention.

Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the efficiency of the Royal dockyards cannot be improved?

GERMAN GOODS (IMPORT DUTIES).

Mr. G. TERRELL: 48.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Customs duty which is levied on goods from Germany is, in the case of invoices which are expressed in marks, levied on the current exchange value of the mark or on the actual value of the goods?

Mr. YOUNG: In the case of all goods liable to an ad valorem duty the statutory value is based on the price which an importer would pay for the goods delivered at the port of importation, and in practice, in the absence of any suspicion of bad faith, is calculated on the invoice price. If this is expressed in foreign currency it is converted into sterling at the rate of exchange current on the date on which the importing ship is reported under the Customs Act.

Mr. TERRELL: Does this.not mean that the greater the depreciation of the mark, the smaller the amount of duty which the hon. Gentleman will get on any given article?

Mr. YOUNG: That is a matter for inference.

Mr. TERRELL: Is it not really a matter of arithmetic?

Mr. SPEAKER: Then it is hardly a matter for a question.

ROSYTH NAVAL BASE (HOUSING).

Mr. J. WALLACE: 50
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the heavy annual expenditure on railway fares and convenience money for Rosyth workers who cannot find housing accommodation in the vicinity of the dockyard, he will consider favourably a grant from the Treasury for the purpose of building a specified number of houses in Rosyth next year?

Mr. YOUNG: My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer feels bound to await the Report of the Committee on National Expenditure before giving a decision on this question.

Mr. WALLACE: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that every year he is spending about £100,000 on train fares and convenience money, and that he could build 100 houses every year for the same sum? Why not take the long view and get to work?

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

STATE EXPENDITURE.

Mr. G. MURRAY: 51.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, with a view to lessening the burden to the tax-
payer during the present trade and business depression, he will consider the desirability of spreading the total expenditure on unemployment, voted in the Supplementary Estimates during this Session, over a period of five to ten years, raising a special short-term loan for this purpose?

Mr. YOUNG: No, Sir. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer thinks it is essential that we should meet current expenditure out of current revenue.

INCOME TAX SUMMONSES.

Mr. GRUNDY: 57.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether his attention has been drawn to the large number of people who are out of employment and are being summoned for the non-payment of Income Tax; and whether, in view of the great distress that exists throughout the country and the inability to pay the tax through unemployment, he will issue instructions that every latitude be given before summonses are issued, and so prevent this additional cost to the taxpayer?

Mr. YOUNG: The hon. Member is, I think, under a misapprehension. The number of cases in which persons, who are in fact unemployed, are summoned for the non-payment of Income Tax, is relatively very small. Such cases, when they do arise, are due to the difficulty experienced by the local officials in ascertaining the individual taxpayer's circumstances and to his failure to intimate the fact of his unemployment. Under standing instructions, taxpayers who are known to be out of employment, and, in consequence, unable to pay arrears of Income Tax due from them, are not summoned.

Mr. GRUNDY: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that many have been summoned, and that the cost of the summons has been added to the Income Tax? That is the position.

Mr. YOUNG: I think, if the hon. Gentleman will look at the answer I have just given, he will see that the circumstances are explained, and he will find that it is probably not the fault of the Inland Revenue.

Mr. HARTSHORN: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in the Ogmore Division a number of men have been proceeded against who were out of employment last March and have not resumed work; that the local Revenue officials were fully cognisant of the local circumstances; and will he take steps to prevent a repetition of that kind of thing?

Mr. YOUNG: I have already stated that to the best of my information and belief, where it is known that the men are out of work, they are not summoned. If the hon. Member knows of cases in which he believes that that rule has been broken, I shall be very glad if he will draw my attention to them.

FARM LABOUR, KINCARDINESHIRE.

Mr. KENNEDY: 62.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that at the Stonehaven (Kincardineshire) Employment Exchange men are being compelled to accept employment with farmers for a wage of 6d. an hour or lose their unemployment benefit; that a number of men who refused to take the work have had their benefit stopped; and whether, in view of the fact that 6d. an hour is only about half the standard rate for general labourers, he will have inquiries made into this matter without delay?

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Dr. Macnamara): I am making inquiry, and will communicate the result to my hon. Friend.

NATIONAL EXPENDITURE (TREASURY CIRCULAR).

Captain W. BENN: 55.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he is now in a position to make a statement as to the results of the Treasury Circular of 13th May last and the reductions promised in reply?

Mr. YOUNG: I beg to refer to my reply to the hon. Member for the Harrow Division (Mr. Mosley) on the 1st instant.

Captain BENN: Does that mean the House of Commons will have no statement whatever about the results of this Circular?

Mr. YOUNG: If the hon. and gallant Gentleman refers to the reply, he will see that I have referred to the statement
made by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he hopes to deal with these matters on the Consolidated Fund Bill.

COTTON TRADE (CAPITAL).

Mr. W. GREENWOOD: 63.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the approximate amount of capital engaged in the cotton industry in this country in August, 1914, and at the present time, the price. of American and Egyptian cotton on 30th July, 1914, and 30th July, 1920, and the rate of wages prevailing in the industry on 30th July, 1914, and 30th July, 1920, respectively?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Sir W. Mitchell-Thomson): I regret that I am not in a position to furnish the information asked for in the first part of the question. The official quotations for middling American cotton and Fully Good Fair Egyptian, Sakellaridis, were, on 30th July, 1914, 6 86d. and 10.10d. per lb. respectively, and on 30th July, 1920, 26'15d. and 67d. per lb. respectively. It is not possible to give statistical information regarding wages in the form suggested in the question, owing to the great variety of rates involved, but I am informed that the increase in wages during the period specified has been estimated at somewhat over 170 per cent.

H.M.S. "BITTERN."

Mr. KENNEDY: 65.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty, with reference to the question to him of 14th April last regarding the judgment in the action at the instance of the Admiralty and others against the owners of the ss. "Clan Sutherland," and the reply thereto, whether, seeing that no steps were taken by the Admiralty to rebut the charges of looting against the crew of H.M.S. "Bittern," although evidence was available, and in order to satisfy the desire of the relatives of members of the crew of the "Bittern" who lost their lives when the "Bittern" was sunk on 4th April, 1918, who resent the imputation of guilt which attaches to the memory of those men, the Admiralty will
now institute a special inquiry into the charge of looting against the crew of the "Bittern," with a view of removing from the crew as a whole the stigma which, on account of the judgment referred to, attaches to each member of the crew, whether innocent or guilty?

Commander EYRES-MONSELL (Civil Lord of the Admiralty): The answer is in the negative. I repeat that the service records of "Bittern's" crew were not in any way affected by the allegations which were made at the trial.

SERVICE INSTITUTES.

Viscount WOLMER: 23.
asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he is aware that the Navy, Army, and Air Force institutes import all their stores into Iraq free of duty, and sell them to the troops in competition with British firms which have to pay import duty; if so, whether he will state on what grounds this preferential subsidy is given to the Navy, Army, and Air Force institutes; and whether it is intended to give a similar preferential subsidy to the Navy, Army, and Air Force institutes in England?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Lieut.-Colonel Sir R. Sanders): As the Noble Lord is aware, the Navy, Army and Air Force institutes provide the troops in Iraq and elsewhere with the institute amenities which are essential to their well-being. To enable the same amenities to be provided throughout Iraq as are provided at home and in other theatres, Navy, Army and Air Force institute stores are admitted free of duty on the condition that sales in institutes are restricted to members of the actual garrison. The conditions of sales in Army institutes and of trading carried out by local firms are so dissimilar as to render comparison impossible. The reply to the latter part of the Noble Lord's question is in the negative.

Viscount WOLMER: Is not this a clear case of trading being State subsidised at the expense of the taxpayer?

Sir R. SANDERS: I do not think it is a clear case.

Viscount WOLMER: If you do this in Iraq how can you refuse to do it in England?

Sir R. SANDERS: I think that is an argument, not a question.

MOTOR TRAFFIC (IDENTIFICATION LICENCES).

Mr. MANVILLE: 25.
asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that the Staffordshire police have in recent weeks prosecuted many of the largest motor manufacturers in the country for alleged offences in relation to the use of general identification licences; and whether, having regard to the heavy expense incurred in defending these summonses, many of which have been dismissed, and the unjustifiable waste of money which would be involved by any attempt to comply with the view of the regulations taken by the Staffordshire police, he will give such instructions as will at once stop this interference with a large industry?

Mr. SHORTT: I have made inquiries and I find that the Staffordshire police, having been asked by the Ministry of Transport to take steps to stop the improper use of general identification marks, have prosecuted in a number of cases where there was primâa facie evidence of a breach of the regulations. There have been a few dismissals, but it would not be reasonable to expect the police to be able to obtain a conviction in every case. I do not find any ground for intervention on my part.

Viscount CURZON: Why is it necessary for the Staffordshire police to be asked to take special action?

Mr. SHORTT: I do not know that it is special.

Viscount CURZON: The right hon. Gentleman said "take special action"?

Mr. SHORTT: I said "to take steps."

MEMBERS' SPEECHES (TIME ECORDERS).

Commander BELLAIRS: I desire to ask you, Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the First Commissioner of Works has expressed his willingness to place
time recorders for speeches on each side of the House so as not to interfere with the architectural lines of the Chamber, provided that the scheme commands the approval of the House, whether you, Sir, will indicate the best course to be pursued? [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no!" and "Hear, hear!"]

Mr. SPEAKER: Judging from the attitude of the House at the moment, and from communications that I have received, it is clear that there are two opinions on this matter. The proper procedure, then, will be for the hon. and gallant Member to raise the question on the Houses of Parliament Vote when it comes up next Session. There will then be an opportunity of obtaining an expression of the opinion of the House. Without that I am sure neither the First Commissioner nor myself would be prepared to take action. I think the hon. and gallant Member had better follow the course I suggest.

Mr. W. THORNE: Will the Government Whips be put on?

Commander BELLAIRS: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he will be good enough to bring on the Houses of Parliament Vote at an earlier period next Session? [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no!"]

Mr. SPEAKER: Next Session would be the time to ask that question.

Oral Answers to Questions — SIR BASIL THOMSON.

HOME SECRETARY'S STATEMENT.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: 32.
asked the Home Secretary whether the special branch of Scotland Yard, hitherto under the control of Sir Basil Thomson, K.C.B., has been abolished or reduced; whether any economy of public money is anticipated from this change; and, if so, what is the estimated amount per year?
In putting this question, may I be permitted to say that I gave notice of it before the Debate of last week, and I mean no discourtesy to the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. SHORTT: The Department has not been abolished and no reduction has yet taken place. The question of possible reductions in expenditure is being considered.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Does the right hon. Gentleman consider that the state of the national finances justifies the keeping of this Department at war strength?

Sir F. BANBURY: (by Private Notice)
asked the Home Secretary whether he proposes to make any statement with regard to the appointment of Sir Joseph Byrne and the retirement of Sir Basil Thomson?

Mr. SHORTT: Yes; with your permission, Sir, and the permission of the House, I should like to make a statement on one or two small points that have arisen with regard to the appointment of Sir Joseph Byrne and the resignation of Sir Basil Thomson. First of all, dealing with the statement made in the Press by Sir Basil Thomson, there are two points, and so far as I can see only two points to which I need refer. The first is that Sir Basil Thomson has said that on the appointment of General Horwood as Chief Commissioner he at once wrote to me and explained that, having regard to his opinion of General Horwood, he would feel obliged to resign if General Horwood was appointed. I may say that such a statement was made by him to me, but having regard to the nature of it, and that it came from an Assistant Commissioner, and that it dealt with matters on which I had no doubt Sir Basil Thomson felt very strongly, and perhaps with some pain, I felt that I ought to treat it as absolutely confidential, and had Sir Basil Thomson not mentioned it I should not have done so. The other point is one with regard to the position of Sir Basil Thomson himself. He claims that he always was independent. May I remind the House that there has never been any question about Sir Basil Thomson's independence in so far as the collection of information was concerned, foreign and home, and his reports to the Cabinet? But there his independence ended. Undoubtedly, however, Sir Basil Thomson has persuaded himself that that state of independence extended to the whole of his work. Sir Basil Thomson himself confirms me in that statement.
In November last year—exactly a year ago to-day—there was a meeting at the Home Office at which the whole position was thrashed out, and it was finally decided, what, in fact, was the position as between Sir Basil Thomson and General Horwood. A day or two after I had drawn
up a statement of what exactly was settled at that meeting. A copy of that statement was sent both to Sir Basil Thomson and General Horwood and accepted by both of them without demur. I think the shortest and best way is for me to read that statement now:
As the result of a discussion with the Commissioner and Sir Basil Thomson in the Home Office on 8th November, 1920, I "—
that is myself—
approve the following arrangements:

(1) The steps taken by Sir Basil Thomson for the protection of the King, the Royal Family, Ministers, and other public persons should have the approval of the Commissioner. The Commissioner should be fully informed beforehand (except in an emergency) of any change in the direction either of additional protection or of the relaxation of the precautions.
(2) The Commissioner should be kept fully informed of what the officers of the special branch are doing in the Metropolitan area.
(3) The Commissioner should be kept generally informed of the distribution and the work of the special branch officers outside the Metropolitan police district.

In order to keep the Commissioner informed on these points, and to consult him on matters requiring his consent, Sir Basil Thomson will call and see the Commissioner every Wednesday morning at 11.30 (or such other time as may be arranged). He will supply the Commissioner with early copies of his weekly reports, and will supply him at once with any information of importance which comes to his knowledge affecting the work of the Metropolitan police. The information supplied verbally will be supplemented by full written communications when the circumstances so demand.
Now, Sir, there follows what sets out the exact position with regard to independence—
In collecting information and preparing reports for the Government on the action of Bolsheviks. Sinn Feiners, etc., Sir Basil Thomson will act independently in his capacity of Director of intelligence. His intelligence officers (other than members of the Metropolitan police) and his staff of clerks and typists will he appointed by him, and will be under his own control. The Metropolitan police officers of the special branch will be under Sir Basil Thomson to the same extent as police officers in other branches are under the control of the other Assistant Commissioners. The supreme disciplinary authority is the Commissioner.
That is the statement which absolutely governs the whole of the relations as they ought to have been. I think I have put the House into possession of the best
information I possess with regard to the arrangements then made. As I reminded the House, the position has been that, while Sir Basil Thomson was independent with regard to the collection of information and reports to the Cabinet based upon that information, the moment executive action was required upon that information he became again, as Assistant Commissioner, subject to the control of the Commissioner.
There were two points raised in the Debate as to one of which I was ignorant, and as to the other I was misinformed, and I desire to put the House in the possession of the true facts and give my explanation. The hon. Member for Bournemouth (Lieut.-Colonel Croft) asked me when I was speaking
How came it about that General Byrne went to Sir Basil Thomson's office at the beginning of this week, and that those who called to see Sir Basil Thomson were told that General Byrne, his successor, was in his office, and was functioning?
and my reply was
I cannot possibly say.
That was a complete surprise to me. I had no information or knowledge whatever that General Byrne had been functioning, or of the document subsequently brought to my notice, namely, the office regulation which had been issued. I regret it, because clearly, had I known of the issue of that document, it would have been apparent to me that any Member of the House might fairly and properly doubt my statement that General Byrne had been offered, but had not yet accepted, the position. I quite appreciate that the existence of that document made it perfectly clear that any Member could say "This is an astonishing statement—to say that there is an offer to General Byrne which has not been accepted." I at once asked General Horwood to give me an explanation and he has given me that explanation in writing, and again I think the best thing I can do is to read General Horwood's explanation to the House, because the only explanation I can offer is General Horwood's:
The circumstances in which this Regulation No. 31 was issued were as follows:
The appointment of Assistant Commissioner had been offered to Sir Joseph Byrne, but, pending a decision being arrived at regarding his pay and pension, he had not accepted.
That was the reason for delay. I did not want to go into those domestic and
private details, but Sir Joseph Byrne refused to accept until he was satisfied with the provision made by the Treasury for his pay and pension. General Byrne, like Sir Basil Thomson, has had varied service, and there was bound to be difficulty about his pension afterwards, unless it was definitely settled before he accepted office. I had told General Byrne about the trouble I had myself to get Sir Basil Thomson's pension arranged. Had I known, I should have told the House that actually on Thursday morning the Home Office were pressing Sir Joseph Byrne to say definitely, one way or the other, whether he would accept. They told him on Thursday morning what the Treasury proposal was, and Sir Joseph Byrne asked for more time to consider his position. That, although I did not know it, was actually the position. General Horwood's letter continues:
It was necessary that the work of the branch should be continued without any hiatus. At my request Sir Joseph Byrne came to the office, and, accompanied by one of my officials, went over to the special branch in order to get some insight into the work of the department of which, if he accepted your offer, he would assume control from 1st December.
I asked him to deal, on my behalf, with matters of routine, and my idea was that by doing so, he would learn the duties and be able by the let December to assume responsibility under me. It was necessary that some official communication should be made to the office as to his position, and accordingly the Office Regulation in question was issued.
You will recollect that when I asked you about the publication in Police Orders of the appointment of Sir Joseph Byrne as Assistant Commissioner you told me that nothing must appear in Police Orders until:

 i. Sir Joseph Byrne had accepted your offer.
 ii. The appointment had been approved by His Majesty.

I therefore kept all reference to the post of Assistant Commissioner out of the draft Regulation.
That is quite true. I had heard that it was intended to put into the Police Orders the appointment of Sir Joseph Byrne, and I stopped it for those reasons. The explanation continues.
The Regulation, like all other Office Regulations, was issued for the information of the office only; and I am unable to say by what process this confidential document reached the Press.
That is General Horwood's explanation, and having had the question raised, and not at the time having been able to deal with it, I have now put the House into possession of the only explanation I have to offer the House, namely, that of General Horwood.
The next point was not a point of very great importance, I do not suppose, but still I was wrong. The hon. Member for Chelsea (Sir S. Hoare) raised a point about the communication to the Press, and I said that no communication to the Press was made to the best of my knowledge, either from the Home Office or Scotland Yard. At that time the knowledge I possessed was this. We were being besieged by gentlemen of the Press in order to find out whether Sir Joseph Byrne had been appointed or not, and I had given definite instructions to the Home Office that the answer was to be "Nothing is yet settled," and I had been assured that my instructions had been carried out. It is upon that I made the answer which I gave to the hon. Member for Chelsea. I have made further inquiry about that, because a quotation from the Press which I had not seen, was shown to me which purported to be an official communication, and I made inquiry from General Horwood, who replied as follows:
The circumstances in which the Press communiqué was issued on Tuesday last were that the fact that Sir Joseph Byrne was in the office had become known to the Press on Tuesday morning, and it was being stated that he had actually been appointed as Assistant Commissioner.
It became necessary, therefore, that some communication should be made to the numerous representatives of the Press who call many times a day at my office, and I authorised my private sceretary to issue a statement to the effect that Sir Joseph Byrne, pending confirmation of his appointment, was acting on my behalf in the Special Branch.
I knew that the Home Office was informing representatives of the Press that the appointment had not then been settled, and I did not inform you of this communication to the Press, any more than I do other communications made every day to Press representatives calling at New Scotland Yard.
I apologise to the hon. Member and to the House for not having that information, and I hope the House will acquit me of having done anything intentionally to mislead the House. Those are the statements which I desire to make, and which I think it was necessary to make.
in order to put those matters right. I think I have made it perfectly clear. I have given the whole of the information I possibly can give to enable hon. Members to form a decision as to whether in fact Sir Basil Thomson did resign because he could not possibly continue to work with General Horwood, he having persuaded himself that his true position was something which it was not; and in consequence a change had to be made, which change involved the decision of Sir Basil Thomson himself that he would resign. That is the statement which I have to make.

Rear-Admiral Sir R. HALL: There are two 'mints that I would like to have cleared up. May I ask my right hon. Friend whether he is aware that the impression he left on the House—I speak personally, and I am in the memory of the House—was that Sir Joseph Byrne voluntarily came to him and said that he could not go on in consequence of the criticisms levelled at him in this House? I speak in the recollection of the House. That was the impression left on my mind.

Mr. J. JONES: On a point of Order. May I be allowed to ask if this is a, Debate, or a reply to a question?

Mr. SPEAKER: It is not the occasion for a Debate, but the hon. and gallant Member is entitled to put a further question.

Sir R. HALL: I propose to put two questions. I would ask my right hon. Friend whether it is not a fact that he personally telephoned to Sir Joseph Byrne to come over and see him here, and whether it was not in consequence of that interview that Sir Joseph Byrne declined the appointment?

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: How do you know that?

Sir R. HALL: Secondly, I would ask my right hon. Friend whether the House is to understand that an offer was made to an officer and that, in spite of the fact that the head of the Department did not know whether he would accept it or not, he was put in charge of one of the most confidential offices in this country and was allowed to work there for a certain period, though the head of the Department was unaware whether he would remain or not?

Mr. SHORTT: It is impossible for me to say what impression I gave to the House. I certainly did not intend to leave any impression one way or the other in regard to that matter. The best way is to tell the House exactly what happened. Immediately Questions were over, and I had seen the attitude, and had heard what was said, and attention had been drawn to the answer in the OFFICIAL REPORT, and it had been read, I at once telephoned to Sir Joseph Byrne. I have been in close touch with Sir Joseph for two years. I told him that I did not wish to speak to him as Home Secretary at all, but as his personal friend. I said, "You probably will not know what has taken place unless I tell you." I told him exactly what had taken place, and I said, "It is for you to consider whether in face of that you can possibly accept the position." That is exactly what happened. With regard to the other point, I am sure the hon. Member will recollect that in his statement General Horwood said that he wanted Sir Joseph to deal with routine work, and there was no chance of his obtaining any information of a really secret character, or of learning anything that could do harm if he did not accept the position.

Sir F. BANBURY: How does the right hon. Gentleman reconcile the statement which he made in the House on Thursday last that
eventually it turned out that for months and months on end he (Sir Basil Thomson) never would go near the Commissioner, or tell the Commissioner certain things. That was making a pitiable spectacle of the Commissioner, and in June of this year, or a little earlier, I began to ask myself whether it was really possible for this to continue.—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd November, 1921; cols. 2054–5, Vol. 147.]
How does the right hon. Gentleman reconcile that statement with the statement of Sir Basil Thomson in the paper of yesterday that he reported regularly once a week up to July to the Commissioner?

Mr. SHORTT: I may have been mistaken as to the month, but as to the broad fact I was perfectly right. Sir Basil Thomson for a time reported in accordance with that arrangement to which he definitely agreed, and then, as he has said himself, he deliberately and definitely stopped.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir S. HOARE: Is it a fact that a Committee of Inquiry was appointed, that at it General Horwood made several inaccurate statements about Sir Basil Thomson's Department without Sir Basil's knowledge, and does he regard that as the loyal act of a chief to a very distinguished colleague?

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: May I ask a question on this point—

Mr. SPEAKER: Mr. Lambert.

Mr. LAMBERT: How comes it that all these confidential conversations and documents are made known to certain Members of the House, and what is the use of a confidential Department when practically the whole of the information is available for debate here?

Mr. SHORTT: I cannot answer the question of the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. J. JONES: No, you could not. "We are the governing class!"

Mr. SHORTT: I have no means of knowing. The Committee was appointed by the Cabinet. I, of course, had no control over the decisions of the Committee. I had a Memorandum from General Horwood which I at once forwarded to Sir Basil Thomson, and I got a Memorandum from him in return. These two were at the disposal of the Committee if the Committee desired them, but I think by that time the Committee had actually made up their minds. I knew nothing of the Committee's procedure until I got their Report, and the moment I got it I sent to Sir Basil Thomson an extract of the part relating to his work.

Sir F. BANBURY: I beg to ask leave—

Mr. JONES: On a point of Order. I would like to ask how long this Debate is going to continue on a private Member's question?

Sir F. BANBURY: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, "the contradictory statements made by the Home Secretary on Sir Joseph Byrne's appointment."

Mr. SPEAKER: I am sorry, but I cannot accept this Motion. It is not definite, and, as to the rest of it, it is the same matter on which we had a Debate last Thursday.

Oral Answers to Questions — QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE.

Mr. W. JOHN, M.P.

Sir J. D. REES: I think it was understood yesterday, when I brought before the House a question of privilege, that it was to be raised to-day after you, Sir, had had time to look into it. Since the House met yesterday I have taken every step open to me to communicate with the hon. Member for West Rhondda (Mr. W. John). I left a letter for him addressed at the Post Office. As there were no means of telegraphing to him, his address not being there, that was all I could do. Yesterday I read to the House a portion of a report in Monday's issue of the "Western Mail," containing the words upon which I would base a Motion to be made at the conclusion of my short speech. In addition to the direct oration there is more in the oblique oration, making it clear that what the hon. Member said referred to the character and conduct of his colleagues in the House of Commons. Of course, it does not follow, because an hon. Member is reported in the Press to have used certain words, that he has necessarily done so, but the "Western Mail" is a journal of very high reputation served by very capable officers, and I do not suppose that it is inaccurate.

Mr. W. THORNE: On a point of Order. I should like to know whether it is in Order for an hon. Member to make a statement with regard to a charge against another hon. Member before that hon. Member has had an opportunity of denying or accepting the charge?

Mr. SPEAKER: The proper procedure is for the Member to state to the House what his claim is on the point of privilege, and then the House will always hear the hon. Member of whose conduct com, plaint is made immediately following.

Sir J. D. REES: I presume that the hon. Member for West Rhondda will be here, but at any rate, without any comment, I will read the passage concerned. It is stated here that Mr. William John, Member for West Rhondda, addressing a meeting of miners on Sunday evening, said,
I should like to take some of the Rhondda miners to witness a Debate in the House of Commons, to see the wealthy landlords coming up from their dining rooms three parts drunk. Some of them cannot stand,
and some there are who have to hold on to their chairs in order to speak in the House of Commons.
There is some more that is not in inverted commas, but, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Platting (Mr. Clynes), when I read so far yesterday, made a short speech which was everything that the House would expect from him, for himself and the Members he represents, I do not think that there is any need for me to prolong this business or to exacerbate any feelings that may arise by reading any portion which follows. I do not believe that the accuracy of the Report will be impugned, but, if it is, I shall have something further to say on the subject. If the Report be correct, there can be no doubt. that this comes under the head—at least I submit so to the House—of a "reflection on a Member" such as has been resented on previous similar occasions as an indignity to the House itself; and that it comes under the head also of "insults to Members" which in fact are breaches of privilege such as have on former occasions been punished by censure, commitment, and confinement. Having sat in this House for more years than the hon. Member for West Rhondda has sat months, I feel sure that I am for the moment expressing the opinion of every Member when I say that it would not only be superfluous, but it would be impertinence on my part to descend to refute such charges. Nothing can be more serious to my mind than that an hon. Member should accuse his colleagues of being
Sons of Belial flown with insolence and wine.
I will now, with your permission, Sir, take this issue of the "Western Mail" to the Table, so that the Clerk may read the passage to which I refer, after which I propose to make a Motion.

THE CLERK OF THE HOUSE (Mr. T. Lonsdale Webster) read the said passage from the "Western Mail," of 7th November, 1921, as followeth:
I should like to take some of the Rhondda miners to witness a Debate in the House of Commons, to see the wealthy landlords coming up from their dining rooms three parts drunk. Some of them cannot stand, and some there are who have to hold on to their chairs in order to speak in the House of Commons.

Sir J. D. REES: I beg to move, "That the said speech is a gross libel on the
Members of this House, and a grave breach of its privileges."

Mr. W. JOHN: I have been very much surprised at the publicity which during the past few days has been given to a statement which I made or am supposed to have made on Sunday evening last. I very much regret that anything I may have said or publicly stated should create such resentment in this House, of which I am proud to be a Member. I do not wish to enter into any quarrel with the Press at all as to the accuracy of the reports of my speech, but I do ask the House to believe me when I say that, whether owing to the falsity of the report or whether owing to the faulty way in which I gave expression to my thoughts, those reports do not accurately convey what was in my mind at the time. Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I desire unhesitatingly to withdraw the statement to which reference has been made, and to offer to this House my sincere and unqualified apology.

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for West Rhondda will now withdraw from the House while it continues its deliberations on the matter.

The hon. Member then withdrew from the House.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN (Leader of the House): This House could not pass over so grave an attack upon its dignity and reputation as the hon. Gentleman is reported in the Press to have made, the moment that that report was brought to the attention of the House. It was only natural that some Member of the House should, as my hon. Friend the Member for East Nottingham (Sir J. D. Rees) has done, after due notice, have moved that that utterance constitutes a grave breach of the privileges of this House. But the hon. Member for West Rhondda (Mr. John) has done what we all hoped he would do. He has unreservedly withdrawn the statements that were made, and unfeignedly expressed his regret at having made them. Under these circumstances, I venture to think we should best observe our traditional attitude and preserve our own dignity—these proceedings being noted as they will be, and that apology being noted, as it will be, on the Journals of the House—if we proceed no further in the matter. I hope my hon.
Friend, in view of the complete withdrawal and apology tendered to the House by the hon. Member, will consent to withdraw his Motion, so that we may proceed to the Orders of the Day.

Sir J. D. REES: I readily accept that suggestion, and beg to ask the leave of the House to withdraw the Motion I made.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

PROBATION, CERTIFIED SCHOOLS, AND BORSTAL INSTITUTIONS BILL,

"to constitute a Probation Commission and establish provisions with regard to reformatory and industrial schools, presented by Sir JAMES AGO-GARDNER; supported by Lord Henry CavendishBentinck, Mr. Arland, Mr. Briant, Lieut.-Colonel Raw, and Mr. Aneurin Williams; to be read a Second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 234.]

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to repeal Section two of the Gaming Act, 1835."[Gaming Bill [Lords.]

GAMING BILL [Lords].

Read the First time; to be read a Second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 236.]

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY.

Resolutions [7th November] reported.

CIVIL SERVICES SUPPLEMENTARY ESTI MATES, 1921–22.

CLASS VII.

1. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £2,192,000, be granted to His Majesty (to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1922, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Ministry of Labour and Subordinate Departments, including the contributions to the Unemployment Insurance Fund, and to Special Schemes under the Unemployment Insurance Acts, 1920 and 1921, contribution to the Unemployed Workers' Dependants Fund; payments to Associations under Section 17 of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1920, and Section 106 of the National Insurance Act, 1911; Out-of-Work Donation and Expenditure in connection with the training of demobilised officers and of non-commissioned officers and men, and the training of women; and grants for Resettlement in civil life; also the expenses of the Industrial Court."

UNCLASSIFIED SERVICES.

2. "That a sum, not exceeding £5,500,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1922, for the relief of unemployment."

ARMY SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1921–22.

3. "That a supplementary sum, not exceeding £6,720,000, be granted to His Majesty to defray the charges for Army Services which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1922, to meet expenditure not provided for in the original Army Estimates of the year, arising out of the coal stoppage."

NAVY SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1921–22.

4. "That a supplementary sum, not exceeding £965,000, be granted to His Majesty to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1922, for additional expenditure on the following Navy Services, namely:



£
£


Vote 1. Wages, &c., of officers, seamen and boys, coast guard, and Royal Marines
745,000



Vote 2. Victualling and clothing for the Navy
212,000



Vote 11. Miscellaneous effective Services
68,000





1,025,000





£
£


Brought forward

1,025,000


Less surpluses on—




Vote 7. Royal Naval Reserves
37,000



Vote 13. Half pay and retired pay
23,000





60,000


Net amount

£965,000"

CIVIL SERVICES SUPPLEMENTARY ESTI- MATES, 1921–22.

CLASS V.

5. "That a supplementary sum, not exceeding £50,000, be granted to His Majesty to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1922, for sundry Colonial Services, including certain Grants in Aid."

UNCLASSIFIED SERVICES.

6. "That a sum, not exceeding £62,100, be granted to His Majesty to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1922, for the salaries and expenses of the State liquor districts, including the salaries of the Central Office and the cost of compensation for acquisition and of direct control of licensed premises and businesses."

7. "That a supplementary sum, not exceeding £100,000, be granted to His Majesty to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1922, for the cost of certain Miscellaneous War Services."

First Resolution read a Second time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

Mr. CLYNES: The. Report stage of this Vote affords an opportunity to return to a matter which I think yesterday was left in a somewhat incomplete state. It is in regard to the instructions to local authorities to limit their wage payment to 75 per cent. of the current wage.

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Dr. Macnamara): That arises on the next Vote.

Mr. CLYNES: I understand then that the point I wish to raise in regard to the instruction of the local authorities to limit their wage payments to 75 per cent. cannot come on this Vote.

Mr. SPEAKER: Yes, I understand from the Minister of Labour that the 75 per cent. refers to the Vote for £5,500,000, which comes next.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I should like to put one or two points to the Minister of Labour. The first is with regard to the period through which this will run. What will happen if the sum is either exceeded or is not all expended? May I explain what I have in my mind. I am afraid there will have to be a good deal of parish relief given in spite of these allowances for dependants. I do not think in many cases it will be possible, especially when there is sickness in a poor family, for them to get on without having recourse to the parish, as these allowances are altogether inadequate where sickness prevails. Indeed, I hope my fellow countrymen will sink any pride they may have and go to the parish in a case where the welfare of children is concerned. It is therefore quite conceivable that the money may not all be expended, and in that case I wish to ask the, right hon. Gentleman, and I apologise for doing so, but I fear that in the earlier stages of the Bill it was not very definitely stated what would happen to the money unexpended. I take it that any excess cannot be used for giving additional benefits within the scope of the Act, for that is impossible by statute. Is the money to be paid back into the Treasury, or will it go to swell the reserve of the Insurance Fund? This, I submit, is a point of substance, because part of this money will be extracted from the pockets of employers and of employed persons who are still in employment. Will it he dealt with as an ordinary saving by the Government Department concerned? If the right hon. Gentleman can tell us his plans with regard to that, I shall be very glad.
Secondly, I want to know what will happen if this sum is not sufficient. Is provision made for Ways and Means advances to carry on this particular service? I do not want to labour the point, hut again I shall be glad if the right hon. Gentleman will say a word or two in regard to it. I dare say provision has been made, but that is what I want to know. With regard to this large sum of money which we are voting, I wish it were more. I say that sincerely. I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for making some small concessions last week, partly, no doubt, as the result of suggestions made before and on the Committee stage of
£2,192,000, and if anyone thinks that it is adequate, I suggest they are under a great delusion. I spent the whole of last week in the North of England visiting—not great centres of population but secondary towns—towns of from 40,000 to 50,000 inhabitants, and everywhere I came across feelings of great distrust with regard to the adequacy of these proposals.

Mr. SPEAKER: The question of the relative contributions of the Government, of employers, and of workers, as also the conditions under which the grants are to be given, have already been settled by the House in the Bill which has received a Third Heading, and, therefore, cannot now be raised. The only question we have to decide is whether or not we shall agree to the payment of the Government contribution.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I regret that the rules of Debate are so limited, although I am, of course, obliged to you for reminding me of it. I had intended on this Motion to make a protest in view of the feeling which I found to exist in industrial districts in the North, where unemployment is most severely felt. I am sorry that the limitations of Debate will curtail my remarks on that point. I do not know whether I am entirely in order in what I am going to say now, but, of course, you will check me if I am not. I think it would' be far better if the Government were really to go into the whole question why these people need relief at this moment.

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Member has been absent from the Debates of the House during the past week, but he cannot now make up for that absence.

Dr. MACNAMARA: I think I can answer the question of my hon. and gallant Friend. He complains that the amount of this Supplementary Estimate is inadequate, but I would remind him, as I did several times in the Debates on the Bill, that it is only one of many endeavours on the part of the Government to find a remedy for the existing state of unemployment. With regard to his specific question, as to what will happen in the event of all the money not being expended, this is what will occur. We shall collect the contributions forthwith from the employers, the workmen and the State. We shall be able to make
the first payment of grants next Friday week out of this fund, and grants will be paid to those who are in receipt of unemployment benefit, a new period of which, I am glad to say, began last Saturday. We shall continue this Bill for six months. There cannot be a deficiency, because I have power to continue collecting contributions past the last day of grant payment until the fund is solvent and its obligations are met. The workmen, the employers and the State will continue to contribute up to six weeks, it may be, after the close of the grant-paying period. The grant-paying period will be in normal cases about 21 weeks, because people are entitled, roughly, to 22 weeks, one of which has passed, because the first payment was made last Saturday. My hon. and gallant Friend asks, what is going to be done with the balance? That is provided in Clause 2 (7) of the Bill, which runs as follows:
Any balance remaining in the Unemployed Workers' Dependants Fund, after discharging its liabilities under this Act, shall be apportioned equitably, in accordance with directions to be given by the Minister of Labour, between the Unemployment Fund and the several funds out of which benefits under any special schemes are payable.
The reason for that is apparent. I collect this ad hoe fund from the persons contributing to unemployment insurance, and if I have a balance, as I shall have after the last week of collection, manifestly the obvious thing to do with it, as I stated last night, is to distribute it equitably amongst these funds.

Mr. W. THORNE: When will the first levy be stopped from the wages of the boys and the girls?

Dr. MACNAMARA: This week.

Sir J. D. REES: I am not at all sure that I am in order, but it will be within your recollection that, when the Third Reading of the Trade Facilities Bill was put there was such a buzz of conversation that it was extremely difficult—in fact, impossible—for anyone to get in, and I want to ask you if it would be in order to make on this Vote any remarks on that subject. I confess I do not see immediately how it can be done, but I did try the other day.

Mr. SPEAKER: No. This Motion deals only with grants to unemployed workers' dependants under the Unemployed
Workers' Dependants (Temporary Provision) Bill, and with no other matter. It has nothing to do with the Trade Facilities Bill.

Major BARNES: As this much discussed Vote is passing from us, I want to make one comment. The amount that we are discussing, namely, £2,192,000, is a contribution which the taxpayer is making for the relief of the ratepayer in this period of great emergency. The Minister shakes his head, but that is the fact. This £2,192,000 is a sum which the guardians of the poor, in determining the relief they give, may deduct from that relief, and, therefore, it is directly a sum contributed in relief of the ratepayer by the taxpayer. The comment I wish to make is that it is entirely inadequate, and it seems to me that the attitude which the Government have taken up in this matter is throwing back upon those who are responsible for rating the ratepayer a very grave responsibility indeed. They will have to consider how far they are going to go in that direction. The House is likely, I understand, to rise in a few days, and will not be sitting for, perhaps, two or three months. During that time, the depths of the winter, it is extremely likely that this emergency will deepen and darken, and that very great claims will require to be made upon the ratepayers; and those who are responsible for making this levy will have to consider whether they are going to accept that responsibility. I suppose that the last thing one should do in this House is to indicate to any persons or body of persons that it may rest upon them not really to carry out the duties with which they are charged; but that step has already been taken by an important authority, and not without result.

Mr. SPEAKER: That does not arise here. We are now dealing only with the question of authorising the State contribution. The terms of the Bill have been accepted as far as this House is concerned, and we dealt with the Lords Amendments last night.

Major BARNES: I bow with entire submission to your ruling. I thought that it would be in order to comment upon the adequacy of the amount. At any rate, I have partly achieved my purpose in making the comment that I have made, and, in deference to your ruling, I will proceed no further.

Question, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution," put, and agreed to.

Second Resolution read a Second time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

Mr. CLYNES: I want to develop at this stage a point which was brought before the Committee yesterday raising the question of policy and an important point of administration on the part of my right hon. Friend opposite. I did not hear all the Debate yesterday on this subject, and, therefore, I am not certain whether any hon. Member brought to the notice of my right hon. Friend the statement of the Association of Municipal Corporations—a body very much involved in the policy which my right hon. Friend has imposed upon public authorities. Those corporations, through their council, expressed the opinion that the scheme of the Minister of Health for aiding local authorities in finding work for the unemployed, as set out in Circulars 245 and 251, is open to serious objection in respect that it imposes upon local authorities the condition that the rate of wages for unskilled labour directly employed must, for a probationary period of six months, be appreciably less than the full district rate. The council, it declares, is of the opinion that this condition will place grave difficulties in the way of local authorities desiring to assist the unemployed; and the council presses for its withdrawal, so as to restore to local authorities their freedom of action. Furthermore, in these decisions of the council, there is the clear indication that in their judgment this condition will lead to very serious friction as between bodies of workmen in different localities and the local authorities. It is proper for them to point out that those local authorities have not only stood in the position of being, but have been asked to place themselves in the position of being, model employers, and, by their conduct of affairs in regard to labour conditions and wages, set examples to other employers of labour of a like kind, though existing in the capacity of private traders.
I look, therefore, upon the action of my right hon. Friend as an extremely harmful precedent, which, even at this stage, he ought to give some indication of re-
vising. Wage reductions are now being suffered very extensively and very severely in point of degree by some millions of wage earners. There can be no doubt about that. Incidentally I would say for them that, recognising the pressure of industrial conditions, they have, in the main, shown themselves willing to submit to some wage reduction, and I think that in every case they have shown themselves willing to have decisions reached by impartial and competent bodies capable of inquiring and of fairly arbitrating upon the differences as between employers and employed. I recently gave some figures to the House in another Debate, showing that the weekly reductions in the wages of some 6,000,000 workers amounted to a figure approaching £4,000,000. I hope that my right hon. Friend is not taking advantage of these rather distressing industrial facts to reverse a definite act of public policy, reaffirmed on more than one occasion by this House, namely, the policy expressed in what is known as the Fair Wage Clause. My right hon. Friend the Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas) alluded to this point yesterday, and I have read with a good deal of surprise the answer of the right hon. Gentleman opposite. I understand that he rather warmly repudiates the view that this is a departure from the Fair Wage Clause, and in effect says, "Nothing of the kind." The Fair Wage Clause requires this House, in connection with work over which it has control, to see that the rates of wages paid for such work shall conform to the standard rates in the districts and in the particular localities.

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Sir Alfred Mond): Hear, hear!

Mr. CLYNES: My right hon. Friend accepts that as the condition. How, then, can he say that he is not violating the terms of that Clause or departing from its principle when he is telling the local authorities, in respect of work over which he exercises control, that they must pay, not the standard rate, but only three-fourths of it—not 1s., if that be the figure, but only 9d0.? I think my right hon. Friend will have to choose his ground. Either he will have to set up some other body of argument or case in support of his policy, or he will have to agree, in face of the facts, that he is departing from the principle and the policy embodied in the terms of the Fair Wage
Clause. This sort of mere unblushing denial from a Minister, even much more hard-faced than my right hon. Friend, cannot be accepted on this side of the House as an argument or as a fact, for, indeed, it is not a fact. The considerable sum, of money which the House is now called upon to authorise is to be paid on the authority of Parliament to find work temporarily, and, as is herein stated, for a period of six months. Those six months will mostly be the months of winter-time—months in which more than the usual amount of money coming into a working-class household will be required for fuel, for clothing, for food, and for those immediate physical necessities which are required in greater abundance in the winter-time than in the summer. It is at such a time, when the higher amount is wanted, that my right hon. Friend, by an administrative act, deliberately takes the course of compelling local authorities to pay the lesser sum.
Other Members of the Government have spoken on the necessity for these works being undertaken to give relief in the winter, and I suggest that it is taking away with one hand what is being given with the other to authorise the course to which my right hon. Friend, apparently, is committed. I think that, if he wished, as no doubt he did, to make the money go as far as possible, another course less objectionable in principle, and even less severe in respect to its hardships, was open to him. If it is competent for a Minister without consulting Parliament, without asking for authority, without even inviting discussion, to take a step which is a deliberate reversal of an act of public policy in relation to wages and terms of contract, he might have chosen another course which would have served substantially the same purpose without the accompanying individual hardships. The right hon. Baronet could have distributed the wages over a larger number of workers by requiring all of them to work a shorter week. There could have been instituted a 40-hour or even 35-hour week so as to bring in a larger number of men to share the opportunity of employment at whatever is the standard rate of wages. To dock the standard rate of wages is the very worst of the several choices open to him. The local authorities, generally speaking, are on terms of business dealing and harmonious relations with the various
trade unions. No wonder that they have protested against this kind of State interference, which will upset the relations existing between the local authorities and the various groups of workmen and the different trade unions.
The local authorities will, of course, this work in the first instance for the purpose of relief, but they will not leave it at that. The men will be put to work of a kind which will produce, in forms of service and usefulness, values which will accrue as the property either of the local authorities or commonly of the counties, or it may be of the whole State. In short, the men will not be put to unproductive labour. There will, as the result of their toil, be produced some form of wealth or capital which will stand to the account and the credit of the various local authorities, and the men who are put to this work will, I am certain, be selected in the main on grounds of their fitness for it. They will be largely men who cannot find employment in a considerable number of the services from which they have been driven out. These services, as we see unhappily by the figures, are to a great extent building trade services, engineering services, and many occupations which draw their labour from men of the manual labouring class. These are the men who in the main will be called upon to do this work, and to have a public authority calling for employment at three-fourths the rate of wages which a private employer must pay for similar work in private industry is a spectacle of which the right hon. Baronet can scarcely be proud. There is an alternative open to him and we must strongly protest against this departure from a policy so frequently laid down by this House and uniformly approved by it, no matter what kind of House of Commons it was. There are in these matters principles which ought to stand above parties and should rise quite high above politics, and in setting this example as the House did many years ago in respect of wages, in requiring local authorities to conform to conditions which would enable them to set up a model to the private traders the right thing was done, as is now agreed upon all hands, and even this state of temporary distress does not justify the reversal of this act of policy for which successive Governments have been responsible. I am therefore curious to
hear upon what grounds any justification for this departure can be maintained, and particularly why this extraordinary step was not first submitted to the House in some form which would have enabled the local authorities first to have expressed their views before this departure was wide, and would have enabled hon. Members to give their views upon it before the circular was actually sent out to the local bodies.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir J. HOPE: Questions were asked yesterday by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Peebles (Sir D. Maclean), myself, and others with regard to the position of Scotland under the distribution of this grant. The Minister for Health replied that Scotland would be dealt with according to her needs, and not according to the exact eleven-eightieths proportion. I hope Scotland will be dealt with according to her needs, because her needs are even greater in proportion than those of England. In England there are some 600 boards of guardians and unions dealing with the population of 40,000,000. In Scotland we have 960 parishes dealing with a population of 4,500,000. Consequently the local authorities who have to relieve unemployment are very much smaller and have very much poorer and smaller areas of assessable value from which to draw money. Already many of the poorer parishes in the large industrial districts where unemployment is rife have found great difficulty in getting the money to deal with unemployment up to date, and they are faced during the winter with a very much more serious state of affairs. Under the Bill which has passed its Third Reading, these local authorities can apply for loans, but they have to find a lender, and who is going to lend unless there is some security? Many of these parishes will not be able to borrow money on the security of a very small assessable value. They will have to come to 'the Central Government for assistance either in the form of a loan or a grant, and I hope Scotland will be considered according to her needs and not merely according to her proportion. But I want to ask further by whom these needs are to be decided. The right hon. Baronet said there would be the Cabinet Unemployment Committee, but it is not reasonable to expect that a Committee of the Cabinet. is going to decide whether some
one of 900 parishes is to have a grant of £2,000 or £3,000. There must be some other machinery for dealing with that. I am told also that the grant will be given to the Scottish Board of Health, but the Scottish Board of Health cannot draw unlimitedly on the grant. Who is going actually to allocate it? Is a Committee going to be set up to decide it? I hope the Scottish Under-Secretary for Health will give an explanation on this subject, which is exercising a good deal of anxiety among parish councils, and let us have it thoroughly cleared up, and we trust the Government will deal as favourably as they can with Scotland.

Sir GODFREY COLLINS: I desire to supplement the question which has been put by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Midlothian (Sir J. Hope). We understand that Scotland's needs are going to be settled by an authority in England. I think that also implies that England's needs should be settled in consultation with a Scottish Member of the Government. If the needs of Scotland are going to be settled by the Minister of Health, we ask for a definite assurance that when the claims of English authorities are considered, as the amount in the Bill is limited, a Scottish representative should sit in judgment on the needs of England. One further small point I desire to put to the Minister, more especially as the Third Reading of the Trade Facilities Bill passed through this House without debate. Could he give any information as to any schemes which have come before him in connection with that Bill? This Vote is to grant certain sums of money to the sellers of credit—to bring the buyer of credit into touch with the seller of credit. These two parties to-day are apart, through the buyer not being able to pay the price demanded by the seller of credit. Could the Minister give us some assurance, from any figures, to show that the scheme outlined by the Government is going to be of any practical advantage? The scheme itself is in the form of a subsidy. I am not enamoured of the subsidy in any shape or form, but it might be advisable in this case. As it is a new principle and the subject has received very little consideration, I hope the Minister will give us some statement on the matter.

Sir HARRY HOPE: I desire to support the view expressed by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Mid-
lothian (Sir J. Hope). If this scheme is to work well I think the House needs to recognise the peculiar position which prevails in Scotland. Our operating areas are very much smaller than they are in England. We have something like 960 parish councils, as against about 600 boards of guardians in England. Therefore the assessable area in Scotland is very much smaller than it is in England. What effect has that? In large areas you get perhaps richer parts of territory brought in to share in bearing the burden: but in Scotland, with these very small areas, and of course a large number of them, you will have a burden placed upon many of our parishes which they will be absolutely unable to bear. With that peculiar condition prevailing in Scotland I think the right hon. Baronet will only make a success of this part of his scheme if he recognises that more money will be needed in Scotland than the ordinary eleven-eightieths. The Parish Councils' Association have considered this and have arrived at the unanimous conclusion that unless adequate support is given to them from national sources they will not be able to meet the burden in any adequate manner.

Mr. PRATT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Health, Scotland): It may be convenient if I reply to the points which have been raised in regard to the method of allocation and administration of the monies provided in this Estimate so far as Scotland is concerned. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Health stated yesterday that the total Vote will be accounted for generally by the Ministry of Health, but the allocation of the total sum among the various purposes for which it is to be available will be made by the Cabinet acting through the Cabinet Unemployment Committee and the Treasury. The Secretary for Scotland is, of course, a member of the Cabinet Unemployment Committee, and the interests of Scotland in this matter of the relief of unemployment will be safe in his capable hands. In regard to the Treasury, Scotland has the good fortune to have in the Chancellor one who also will see that the just claims of Scotland are not overlooked.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. ALLEN: Can the hon. Member tell me if there is a representative from Ireland on the Committee?

Mr. PRATT: I am afraid I cannot answer that question.

Sir W. ALLEN: I should be glad to know.

5.0 P.m.

Mr. PRATT: I can only speak on this occasion for Scotland. The note appended to the Estimate before the House states that the sum will be allocated to meet expenditure under the direction of the competent Government Departments. Where the Scottish Department is charged with the administration of a particular subject, that Department will be responsible for the administration of the moneys provided in this Estimate so far as Scotland is concerned. Forestry is administered by the Forestry Commission, whose operations extend from Scotland as well as to England and Wales. The grants for roads are given by the Ministry of Transport, to which the same statement applies. Moneys for land improvement and drainage in Scotland will be administered by the Scottish Board of Agriculture. With regard to the Poor Law authorities, there is no intention that the Secretary for Scotland and the Scottish Board of Health should be ousted in any way whatever.
It. is necessary that uniform principles should be adopted in dealing with applications from Poor Law authorities for loans, and it is proposed, therefore, that a Treasury Committee be appointed to consider all applications made by the Poor Law authorities in the several countries, and to make recommendations to the Ministry of Health and to the Secretary for Scotland as to whether in response to any particular application a loan should be granted, and, if so, to what amount, and upon what conditions. Scotland will, of course, be represented upon this Committee, which is likely to be a small Committee, consisting, I think, of three or four members. Upon that Committee there will certainly be a Scottish representative. The Scottish Board of Health will furnish information to the Committee upon the Scottish applications. First of all, applications come to the Scottish Board of Health, and through the Scottish Board of Health to the Committee upon which Scotland is represented. In regard to the Committee over which Lord St. Davids presides, and where Scottish interests are also repre-
sented, we have, up to the present, had not one complaint about the way in which Scottish interests have been dealt with by that Committee.

Sir J. HOPE: Can the hon. Member say if this Committee will be set up at once? I understand there are some very urgent cases.

Mr. PRATT: Yes, Sir. I imagine that as soon as the House grants this money, steps will be taken to set up the Committee.

Mr. W. THORNE: The question that we are discussing is the grant of £5,500.000, and the point is whether we are going to get all or none. There is going to be a fight between the different parts of the Kingdom as to whether they are going to get their fair share or not. I understand from the statement just made by one of the Government's representatives from Scotland, that so far as Scotland is concerned there is a representative upon what is known as the Cabinet Unemployment Committee. I do hope that although there is a representative from Scotland upon that Committee, no undue influence will be used with a view to getting more for Scotland than they are entitled to. Of the sum of £5,500,000 a certain portion is to be given to England, a certain portion to Wales, a certain portion to Ireland and a certain portion to Scotland, and no political influence of any kind should be used as to the way the money is to be allocated. The fairest way would be to grant the money pro rata to the number of men and women out of employment. If there is a greater percentage of men and women out of employment in England, then England ought to have a greater share, and so on all the way round.
My hon. Friend who has just spoken referred to the Lord St. Davids' Committee. So far as local authorities are concerned, they are going to be very much worse off under the methods adopted by the Government in granting this £5,500,000. I will give one simple illustration, which will be sufficient to serve as a guiding principle for other local authorities. Assuming that West Ham wanted to borrow £100,000. If they could obtain that money from the Lord St. Davids' Committee they would be able to obtain in the shape of relief on
account of their being allowed 75 per cent. for wages, a sum of £42,000 out of the £100,000. If we got £100,000 from this £5,500,000, we should be able to obtain from the Government, in the shape of what is known as the 65 per cent. of the interest and loan repayment charges, only £32,000. The result would be that West Ham would be £10,000 worse off under the Government's proposition than if they could obtain the money from the Lord St. Davids' Committee. What applies to West Ham applies to local authorities all over the country. The Government are making absolutely no concessions so far as this £5,500,000 is concerned. It is too late now to make amends, because the Government have made up their minds what they are going to do, but I do suggest that the Government should not in any way tie up the funds under the control of the Lord St. Davids' Committee. There is a good deal of money under the control of that Committee. When local authorities apply for grants, they will be put under this £5,500,000, and will not be allowed to get grants from Lord St. Davids' Committee under the old system. That being so, all the local authorities will be very much worsted under the Government's proposition than they would have been if there had been no Government proposition brought forward.

Mr. LAWSON: I want to follow up the point raised by the right hon. Member for Platting (Mr. Clynes) in connection with the Circulars which have been issued by the Ministry of Health. It is laid down in the Circulars that there is to be a probationary period of six months, during which local authorities must only pay 75 per cent, of the current rate of wages on relief work. I wish to call attention to the ridiculous position of the local authorities in connection with the application of the principle. There will be men engaged upon work of a similar character to that on which they have been engaged. These men may not have been engaged on roadmaking or on drainage work, but it may be that they have been engaged all their lives in handling a pick and a shovel. Take my own district. There are a large number of miners unemployed. They will be employed on roadmaking and drainage. The roads are badly in need of repair, and there are considerable arrears in that
direction. That will be useful work, not merely artificial relief work, but very necessary work. The men who will be called upon to do that 'work will be miners, and they will be paid only 75 per cent. of the current rate of wages for the probationary period, yet those men are eminently fitted to do that kind of work. Because of their skill in that direction the Government went out of its way during the War to pay them a special rate of wages for doing a certain kind of work at the front. They were paid this extra rate for tunnelling at the front., and it may be possible that they will be called upon to do exactly the same kind of work for civil purposes, and yet they will only get three-fourths of the ordinary current rate of wages.
I cannot think that the Ministry of Health have really thought out the full effect of these Circulars in their actual application. Could not the Minister of Health consider the withdrawal of the instructions, because it is going to create a very serious situation. I do not believe it is a good thing that there should be this probationary period. When an employer engages a man, he does not pay him a special rate of wages for a probationary period, but he accepts the man for what he is worth, and does his best to get as much work out of him as possible. The Government's Circular will cause very bitter feeling in an area where men will be doing work of a like nature to their own, and which they are eminently fitted to do. The Minister of Health is not merely contemplating the need for employment, but he is wanting to give a touch of pauperism to this kind of work. When a regular rate of wages is not paid, that is the only effect that can be produced. This is a principle to which the employers will not turn a blind eye. At the present time we have men up and down the country having their wages cut. The argument is that it is based on economic grounds as to whether the industry can be made to pay or not, and men are called upon to face the hard facts, and they are facing them, but here is the Government, which professes to be a shield for the working man, deliberately coming forward and making a cut in wages, not on economic grounds, but on grounds which are vague and almost beyond understanding.
I should like also to emphasise the question of the Fair Wages Clause. I read the answer on that point, and cannot think that the Minister of Health is convinced that he is not in this instruction doing violence to the Fair Wages Clause in Government contracts. When the Government asks contractors to do Government work, they require them to pay the trade union rate of wages; but here is the Government giving an instruction which, for six months, violates that very principle in its essence. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman can modify that instruction, or withdraw it, but surely, if men are doing like work to that on which they are usually engaged, there is room for consideration as to whether they should not get the full rate of wages. More than that, the whole principle is bad. It will cause, and is causing, strong feeling throughout the country, and will emphasise the impression already abroad that the Government is aiding the cutting of wages in the various industries, and, rather by the means of arbitrating between employers and workers themselves, is itself deliberately helping employers in the direction of cutting by indicating the direction in which they can go through the instructions in the two Circulars.

Mr. ACLAND: I intervene with regard to a matter which I have raised already twice in this House which affects certain local authorities, particularly in Cornwall, which have already reached the limit of their power of rating themselves, and, though they are very anxious to be able to do work for themselves and not rely simply on Government help, have come utterly to the end of their resources. I have appealed before with regard to the Bills which were before the House, but what I am about to say does not come under Bills which we have passed. It is a question of what assistance can be given to the local authorities, and therefore it comes under this Estimate. The local industry on which the great bulk of West Cornwall relied, tin mining, is practically dead. It has been killed largely by the high prices of coal on the other side of the Channel, and the people have emigrated from the district, as Cornishmen have always been accustomed to emigrate, as far as they can. But there is a large remnant of labour there which has been
out of employment, and will be unless local schemes of employment can be found.
In these districts, and districts like those of which the hon. Member for West Ham spoke, in districts such as Redruth and Camborne, where the rates already exceed a sovereign in the £, it is very difficult to put them any higher. There are a thousand people in that district who have to be excused from the payment of any rates at all, and the local authority think, not unfairly, that if they were to increase the rates on those people who are now just on the, margin of dragging on somehow and managing to pay their rates, that the only result of an increase would be that far more would have to be excused. Therefore the local authority would not be able to collect any more than they collect at present. The situation is best explained by the simple statement that no less than 78 per cent. of the total ratepayers in the district are out of work, and on one or other scheme of relief, or out of altogether, and absolutely on the rates on such subsistence as they can get through poor relief.
Those people try to help themselves. They have been examining these schemes of the Government hoping that there would be something which they could co-operate and get assistance. Nothing has come. There was a scheme, I think a good scheme, if more money had been available, for a harbour of refuge for ships St. Ives, or in that district. That would produce no return, and I was told by a representative of the Government the other day that therefore it would not fall within the category of schemes that could be aided under the Bill. There are no large afforestation schemes or arterial drainage feasible, and with regard to roads they have done all that they can. The only things before them which can be assisted under legislation are schemes of sewage disposal. The Ministry of Health has been for years pressing on Camborne and Redruth schemes of sewage disposal. These works to some extent had been already begun until the rates got so high that the local authorities felt bound to stop. But these works of sewage disposal are extremely desirable from the point of view of the public health of the district. The people are a mining population who live mainly in a basin with rather high pits between themselves and the sea, and it would be
necessary in some cases to tunnel through these pits to provide an outlet for the sewage from the town.
Previously, I imagine, before certain circulars were, issued, the Government would have been willing to include these schemes within those which have been recommended by Lord St. Davids' Committee, and they would have been willing to sanction the grant of 60 per cent. of what was spent on labour; but now the amount granted to local authorities has been altered considerably for the worse, because now it is up to a maximum of 65 per cent. of the interest and sinking fund on a loan for a maximum of half the period of the loan. That means only half 65 per cent. for the whole period of the loan, or 32 per cent. of the whole cost of the scheme, instead of 60 per cent. of the expenditure on labour, so that the Government proposal would mean far less than the amount that could previously be given. In fact the local authority, even if it had already screwed itself up to the point of adding to the already terrific burden of rates by accepting the previous offer of Government assistance, would now find the matter made more difficult because the new terms are more onerous. It would be unjust for me to pretend that these local authorities are in a position to start work, even if the Government had kept on granting 60 per cent. of what is spent on labour, when you have already rates exceeding a sovereign in the pound. It is a fact, staring you in the face, that when you get the new assessment you will have a, heavy fall in the assessable value of the district owing to the mines, which are the chief ratepayers of the district, going out of operation and the local authorities cannot find any considerable increase in the ratepayers' burden. If they did you might find the rates up to 30s. or £2 in the pound, and then more than half the population would have to be excused from payment of rates.
I do not want the right hon. Gentleman to close his mind on this and to say his last word, but there has not been the same consideration given to these cases as to those of some local authorities near our doors, say in the East End of London. The people in Cornwall are trying to help themselves. Now, with the very cold weather coming on, a band of them have joined together as a miners' choir, which is singing all around Devon and Cornwall and collecting a certain amount of
money to relieve distress; but the distress is appalling, and it is the fact that it is now a question of relieving actual starvation. It is not a question of keeping up anything like a reasonable standard of life. They have now come to the end of work in sight under the Government scheme. Unless they can have something in the nature of a loan given, in the special circumstances that prevail locally, it will be impossible for these sewage disposal works to be begun. I know that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health is fully informed of the fact, but I do want to be able to send down to Camborne this afternoon a message that, after all, 65 per cent. over half the period of the loan is not the only thing that the Government can say, because, if so, the only result of our deliberations will he that the position will he very much worse than before, and if that is the case there must be trouble, and the patience with which the terrible distress has been borne up to the present cannot be relied on to last for ever. Knowing my right hon. Friend's sympathy and his knowledge of the matter, I will say no more, but I would ask him to give some indication, on the special points of this kind, that he may be able to help to some greater extent than is indicated by the circular to which I have referred.

Sir E. NICHOLL: I had intended to say something on this question of the Cornish miners, but the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Camborne (Mr. Acland), with whom I wish to associate myself, has left nothing for me to say. He has covered all the ground I wished to cover except that he has not emphasised sufficiently the destitution of the Cornish miner, which is best shown by the fact that 78 per cent. of the mining population are now practically living on charity. Bands of them are going all round the county collecting.for their present maintenance, but that cannot go on indefinitely. There are two or three schemes—I have just put one into the Minister's hands—which may help to give some relief. Some 7,000 men are out of work, and the mines are closed. The Government catered for the wants of the coalminers, but they have absolutely neglected the Cornish miners. The Cornish mines have been closed finally on account of the high price of coal. To that they attribute the closing of their mines.
Therefore I hope that the Government will help them, and will go out of their way a little more than usual to provide for those men, who are among the most hard-working, industrious, and honest class of men to be found in the whole country.

Sir A. MOND: I sympathise very heartily with the case of extreme distress in Cornwall which has been brought to our notice on more than one occasion and which has been caused by the stoppage of the tin mines in that county. The mind can scarcely imagine a more melancholy spectacle than that of a whole community bearing the highest reputation throughout the world as miners and craftsmen being placed in a state of destitution owing to economic circumstances which they cannot control. Therefore it is not with any want of sympathy that this subject has been approached. The difficulty as in other areas—the coal mining districts offer very much the same spectacle—is as to what is the best method to adopt to relieve the situation. I cannot see that you can profess to have found an answer to this problem by temporary work in the locality, and if the mining industry is never again going to be in the place some better and more prosperous locality will have to be found in which the skilled craft which the miners possess can be exercised.

Sir E. NICHOLL: Emigration.

Sir A. MOND: Not necessarily emigration, but it, may mean removal to another part of the country. If you have a large number of miners in a district where the mines are closed and are not to be opened again, you cannot keep them indefinitely on the spot. I have to deal this afternoon with the more immediate questions raised by the right hon. Member for Camborne (Mr. Acland) and the hon. Member who has just spoken. My right hon. Friend remarked that some sewerage works might possibly be undertaken in his constituency, and he said he did not think the new proposals of the Government, were as favourable to the local authorities as the arrangement suggested last year. I do not agree with him. I have heard that statement made frequently, and I have never yet agreed with it. After all, on any scheme of sewerage or on any other undertaking, a. considerable amount of material is
required. The old scheme gave no assistance in the provision of material and accessories, and in that respect the new scheme is better than the scheme of last year. The right hon. Gentleman made a point of the fact that in his constituency a local authority has rates of 20s. in the £. A rate of 20s. in the £ is not at all an unusual rate, as things are to-day for rates of 28s., 29s. and 30s. in the £ are known, and those localities which have a rate of 20s. in the £ cannot consider themselves in the position of being unable to take any action on their own account.

Mr. JONES: In this case the principal industry in the district is stopped altogether.

Sir A. MOND: The locality would have some burden to bear in this connection on the poor rates, and the matter should be looked at partly from that point of view. I have just had placed in my hands by my hon. Friend the Member for Penryn and Falmouth (Sir E. Nicholl) a scheme for a light railway. Of course, I cannot offer any opinion on that scheme. If the hon. Member will put it before the Ministry of Transport they will deal with it, considering it on its merits with a view to providing work under the Vote which the House was discussing to-day. If I can do anything in that direction I shall be very glad to do it. I am obliged to return to a subject which was discussed at great length yesterday. The right hon. Member for Platting (Mr. Clynes) was not present during the Debate yesterday, and I may have to repeat some arguments which dealt fully with his case. Although the right hon. Member says he has done me the honour of reading what I said yesterday, apparently I have not been able at all to convey to his mind either the motives or the results of what I said. He referred to what he called a question of purely administrative action by the Ministry of Health in relation to rates of pay on relief works. That shows that he has not taken the trouble to read the circular issued by the Ministry of Health. The Cabinet Committee on Unemployment having considered the matter, the Ministry of Health is issuing instructions. It is not a kind of secret viciousness on my part; it is a deliberate policy of the Government based on very definite reasons. That I endeavoured to explain yesterday. The right hon. Gentleman
cannot mean that an apprentice or improver is entitled to the same rate of pay as the fully trained man.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: The apprentice is usually a married man with a family.

Sir A. MOND: No one is asking whether he is a married man with a family. Do not let us get off to a point of that kind, which is immaterial to the argument I wish to develop.

Mr. CLYNES: May I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that he has missed the point of my complaint? I alleged that Parliament formerly had established a rate of pay for public work, and that was an act of public policy. I complain now that a departure has been made from that policy without reference to this. House. This House was the instrument of the previous Act and a change has been made without this House being consulted in any way.

Sir A. MOND: I agree on that point. The House was not sitting, and the work had to be commenced; the local authorities were anxious to proceed with the work.

Mr. JONES: On a point of Order. Is it not a fact that on all the relief works now in progress a fair trade union rate of pay is being paid?

Mr. SPEAKER: That is not a point of Order.

Sir A. MOND: Many local authorities are carrying out schemes. Surely the right hon. Gentleman does not want to hang up all this work? The House has voted on, and by an enormous majority has supported the decision of the Government. The key of this scheme is the probationary period of six months.

Mr. LAWSON: I do not know whether there was a note taken of the point I made, which was to the effect that when it lays down a probationary period it applies that to men who have been doing light work. A man who has been handling a pick and shovel on a road or on drainage is able to do the work, and during the War was paid a high rate for it.

Sir A. MOND: I hope hon. Members will allow me to proceed with my argument. I was pointing out that this was
not a violent attempt to break through the Resolution of this House. That Resolution referred to normal work under normal conditions in a normal district. In such circumstances the Fair Wages Clause applied, but this is abnormal work for relief purposes, and the labour engaged in many cases is not specially suitable to and normally would not be engaged on the work. How can the right hon. Gentleman stand at that box and maintain that the conditions are parallel? Does anyone suggest seriously that the Government is trying to break down wages rates in this country because of the conditions laid down here? In the first Circular we issued, no percentage of any kind was fixed. Much of this work is work which local authorities do not want to do, and many of them assure me that they will not undertake it at the ordinary rate because of the experience they had last year. Local authorities say that the results last year were appalling, and they state, "You cannot expect us to carry on." I have had a conference with the local authorities, and this question was discussed. One of the loading mayors and one of the leading aldermen of Birmingham said, "We are not going to do anything more like last year, and be compelled to pay wages of £1 a week in order to obtain about £1 worth of work."
On whose shoulders would the burden largely fall? On the shoulders of those who are often working half-time in their own industry. Many men are on halftime, I am sorry to say. The right hon. Gentleman says, in effect, that these men must be put in a worse position by the payment of uneconomic and unnecessarily high rates to those who are put on relief work. It amounts to that, and that is one of the things we want to avoid. I do not want to get into the position, and I am sure the right hon. Gentleman does not wish it, that the man on relief work doing this kind of work should get a higher wage than the man in a cotton mill in Lancashire who is working part time or the man in a coal mine or in a fitting shop who is only partially employed. The question is not as simple as has been suggested. The fact that wages are coming down makes the task harder rather than easier, because the relation between wages is continually shifting.

Mr. CLYNES: Tile right hon. Gentleman has made so much out of what I. said, and has put so many questions to me, that I now venture to interpose to ask him whether he is not using one hardship, of which we are all aware, as an excuse for inflicting another.

Sir A. MOND: I do not think that is quite the case. The right hon. Gentleman may put it that way, but I do not consider that a very reasonable way of putting it. So far as I am concerned, I am trying to balance the hardships. Undoubtedly, if you get men to work for less than a normal wage you are inflicting a hardship, and undoubtedly, even where the full rate is being paid, there may still be hardships, but that, surely, is not the reasonable way of looking at it. When the right hon. Gentleman advocates a shorter week, that also is inflicting a hardship. What the right hon. Gentleman says in effect is, "I do not like the way you are inflicting the hardship; if you inflicted it in another way, we should be much more satisfied." That is actually the point he is putting. Why should you ask a man to work three days a week at the full rate, instead of giving him 75 per cent. of the full rate for a whole week? If you adopt the former course, you will in some eases have a job in which the men work for three days in a week and then for three days that job is standing idle. The right hon. Gentleman assumes that there are always enough men to put on to keep the whole job going.

Mr. J. JONES: Of course there are.

Sir A. MOND: May I suggest that my hon. Friend does not know everything about unemployment though he may know about it in Silvertown?

Mr. JONES: I know more about unemployment than you do.

Sir A. MOND: I agree that the hon. Member may know unemployment in that part of the world in which he lives.

Mr. JONES: Yes, and in the whole country.

Sir A. MOND: There are different circumstances. There are many districts in which the case is as I have indicated, and there are many other districts in which it is not. Are you to endeavour to lay down an arbitrary rule that a local authority, under no conditions, is to be
allowed to work a man more than three days a week? If so, you would have the result, particularly in certain areas, that a job would never be finished. It would go on for three days and stand idle for three days, and altogether this would be one of the most vicious principles I can imagine in this respect. I cannot understand my right. hon. Friend the Member for Miles Platting (Mr. Clynes) after his experience suggesting that principle. We have considered it from time to time and turned it down, and I shall continue to turn it down unhesitatingly. I regard it as a very bad principle, and I am not prepared to accept it. What I desire to point out is that no definite scale was fixed in the first Circular. The local authorities had very considerable elasticity. Unfortunately they did not wish to avail themselves of the elasticity. They said they could not interpret the Circular, and they asked what was a "substantially lower sum." They asked that a definite amount should be fixed. Now no amount that we fix will fit in with every possible scheme and every possible locality. We had to fix a sum which would be reasonable, and that was 75 per cent., taking it all over. That has already led to difficulties, and I am considering modifications. It has been pointed out that if a man is only working three days a week, and if his wage is only 75 per cent. of the rate, he is really getting such a small sum of money that he cannot do anything with it. We considered that the other day, and we decided that under certain conditions the reductions should only be 12½ per cent. instead of 25. The hon. Member for Silvertown (Mr. J. Jones) made what I think is a perfectly fair proposal—that a man who is going on to a job and who can do that job perfectly well should not be asked to undergo a probationary period. I may point out that we have already laid it down that where men have already been upon work of a similar character for a period of as long as six months and are going on relief work, they can go on at the full rate.

Mr. JONES: I am very sorry to interrupt. I take the case of builders' labourers and other men like that, large numbers of whom are out of work. Will these men be considered as having fulfilled their probationary period if they are acquainted with the work concerned in
this matter—road making and such kinds of work?

Sir A. MOND: I said I would consider that point, and I have been considering it this morning and I hope to find a form of words to deal with it. I agree there is great force in the point made by the hon. Member that if a man knows a job and gives a full day's work on it, it is not reasonable to say that he should fulfil a probationary period. I hope we shall meet that in a satisfactory way. Difficulties, however, will arise as to administration. When people are not particularly careful or particular scrupulous it will be difficult to avoid paying everybody on the full rate whether they know the job or not. On general lines, however, I hope we shall be able to meet this. That in itself is an answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for Platting and shows that this is not an attempt, nor was it ever meant as an attempt, either to do away with the Fair Wages Clause or to break down in any way the normal rate of wages. On the contrary contractors working for local authorities are not permitted to give lower wages. It is specially designed to maintain the normal principle of a wages rate for anybody working in a trade, and it is also designed to prevent the employer taking advantage of what we may call an abnormal state of things in which men on work of this character cannot possibly get the normal rate. The whole thing is abnormal. My right hon. Friend will admit that if there was a proposal to work half time when ordinary work would give the most economic results, nobody would advocate it. We have to remember that relief work is abnormal and that the people who are given these jobs are not entitled to the same rate of wages as the people who are working normally. We must make the money go as far as we can. Those are the principles laid down in the Circular, with certain modifications, and we must endeavour to maintain them.

Mr. T. THOMSON: The Minister of Health has referred to the action of the local authorities at the conference which he had with them. I gather he quoted that in support of his attitude on the rate of pay. He will forgive me if I point out that that conference specially pressed upon him the desirability of giving the
various local authorities a free hand in this matter in order that they might meet the particular needs of their particular districts. Therefore, I submit that is evidence rather against, than in favour of, him. He told us that 181 local authorities had schemes, thus suggesting that therefore they were in favour of working under these conditions. I put it to him that a great deal of the work which is now in hand had been commenced under the Lord St. Davids Committee grants, and under those grants no conditions whatever have been made as to paying only 75 per cent. of the recognised scale of wages. If that is a sound principle for the Lord St. Davids' Committee to act upon, surely it is equally sound in this case. The right hon. Gentleman tells us he has considered modifications. The present scheme is difficult to work on account of its hard and fast nature. You have districts where there are miners, blast furnace workers and shipyard workers and men accustomed to hard manual labour, who would be as good road makers, after a short experience, as any ordinary unskilled labourer. This cast-iron rule makes it impossible to differentiate between the various classes of labour to be employed. With regard to the Minister's point that it is impossible to have work proceeding for three days and standing idle another three days, surely he knows that many local authorities, on account of the large number of men wanting work, have adopted that plan. In my own particular town they are employing men only two or three days in a week, but the job is going on continuously all the time, and by the division of the work the relief is spread over the largest number of men. In districts where you have labourers accustomed to hard manual outside work it is unreasonable to say that the local authority must only pay them 75 per cent. of the standard labourer's wage. The Minister has told us that the labourer's wage averages about £3 10s. That would be 35s. for half a week and then you have to.[...]ake 25 per cent. off that. Surely he will admit it is not reasonable to attempt to deal with the question of unemployment in that way.
The Association of Municipal Corporations is not a trade union body. Its president is the hon. Member for the Ever-ton Division of Liverpool (Sir J.
Harmood-Banner), and its vice-president is the hon. Member for the Ladywood Division of Birmingham (Mr. N. Chamberlain), neither of whom can be accused of having wild Labour ideas. That body, representing local authorities irrespective of political opinions, has an intimate acquaintance with the difficulties of working this problem, and surely the right hon. Gentleman might give more heed to their resolution than he has done up to the present. I hope, as he is to consider modifications, that he will further consider whether he cannot give the local authorities that full freedom which will enable them to adopt their particular regulations to their own needs in their own districts. Another point is the total inadequacy of the grant which is being made to local authorities. That same conference of local authorities to which he himself referred urged upon him the necessity of contributing 75 per cent. to the cost of this work. I put it to him that in districts where the rates are 20s. and 30s. in the £ it is of very little assistance to contribute less than one third of the cost of the work. The condiditions in some of these districts are such that they are heading towards bankruptcy. I submit, as the Prime Minister said in the early discussion on this question, that it is a national responsibility and should be a national charge. Further assistance should be given to these distressed localities, these necessitous areas, in order that they may meet their obligations and the demands upon them. You have a precedent in the Necessitous Schools Area Grant which was recognised by this House, and carried out for a number of years. Under that, where the burden of the local education rate was above the average, special State assistance was granted to industrial areas. That precedent could be carried out in this particular instance. In those districts where the burdens are greatest, where the rates are amounting up to 30s. in the £, it is no use saying you will pay one-third of the cost of the work while the work is costing one-third more, on account of the high price of materials, than it would be under normal conditions. I appeal to the Minister to realise the terrible necessity which exists and to revise his policy with regard both to the rate of wages and to the amount of the grant which he is proposing to give to the local authorities.

6.0 P.M.

Mr. A. HOPKINSON: The hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. T. Thomson) has failed entirely to think what is the really important point at issue, and that is, Where is the Money going to come from? Only last week two miners in my own village showed me their wages checks for the last week. In both cases they put in five shifts in the pit, and in both cases their wages were between 30s. and 40s. a week. Theirs is not a case of the brutal capitalist grinding them down; it is the case of a pit which is actually in the hands of a receiver, because, even paying those wages, he could not make ends meet. Are these unfortunate miners, working five shifts a week in the pits, to have their wages week by week taken away from them to keep able-bodied paupers employed at a higher rate of wages? That is the whole point. Every penny that is spent on these relief works will come sooner or later out of the pockets of those men who are still employed on useful work in industry—every penny of it—through the rates or through the taxes, one or the other. It comes from the same pockets. It must come from those industries which are still in work, and it must come out of the pockets of those unfortunate men who, whether they are working one day, or two days, or even five days a week, at productive work, have to find the money to keep, as I say, able-bodied paupers in conditions of greater comfort than they themselves can possibly attain. It is really sickening to hear one Member after another get up on the other side of the House, and claim that the unfortunate miner in the pit is to have part of his very small wages taken away from him week by week to be given to people not working, because the hon. Member for Middlesbrough knows as well as I do that men engaged on relief works for local authorities never by any chance give a fair return for their wages.

ROYAL ASSENT.

Message to attend the Lords Commissioners,

The House went, and, having returned,

Mr. SPEAKER reported the Royal Assent to:

(1) Forestry Act, 1921.
(2) Unemployed Workers' Dependants (Temporary Provision) Act, 1921.
274
(3) Edinburgh Corporation Order Confirmation Act, 1921.
(4) East Lothian County Buildings Order Confirmation Act, 1921.
(5) Dorward's House of Refuge (Montrose) Order Confirmation Act, 1921.
(6) Church of Scotland (General Trustees) Order Confirmation Act, 1921.
(7) Oban Burgh Order Confirmation Act, 1921.
(8) Greenock Corporation Order Confirmation Act, 1921.

SUPPLY [7TH NOVEMBER].

Second Resolution.

Question again proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

Mr. A. HOPKINSON: I was explaining that all the money which is spent on relief works under this Vote must necessarily be paid out of the pockets of those engaged in industries, which still are able to afford employment to workers; that in those industries short time is very prevalent, and wages are going lower and lower; and that the unfortunate men who are engaged in those industries which are still carrying on on short time are having a portion of their wages taken, week by week, to be paid to able-bodied workers employed on pauper relief works at a higher rate of wages than those of the men who have to pay them. I say that conditions of that sort are really a very grave injustice to the colliers and others—

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Does the hon. Member call ex-service men employed on these relief works paupers?

Mr. HOPKINSON: Any man, whether ex-service man or anyone else, who is obtaining his living at the expense of his neighbours, is a pauper. I should like to point out that one of the main objects of the Government's policy is to endeavour to persuade the people of this country that this relief which is given them is not outdoor relief. The whole policy pursued by the Government, in this and other Measures before the House at the present time, is to give outdoor relief, and to call it by some other name, so that nobody need be ashamed. It is very
unfortunate that there has grown up in the minds of the workers of this country the extraordinary shame of taking outdoor relief such as this Vote proposes, because if a man's position is such that he has to apply to the guardians for relief, no man need be in the least ashamed of doing it if he is unable to obtain his living otherwise. Therefore, it is totally unnecessary that Votes of this sort should be granted by this House in order that the Government may be able to pretend that this is not outdoor relief, since the shame of outdoor relief entirely depends on circumstances. Again, we hear hon. Members opposite—I have heard them this evening—speaking about generous provision by the State in this matter. I cannot too often repeat that I do hope hon. Members will try to think the matter out. I cannot too often repeat that the State has no money of any sort whatsoever, and, in the nature of things, never can have any money, and that when you talk of the State providing these funds, what you mean is, that the workers—and the brain-workers also—are providing these funds. One of the biggest fallacies of the present day—I am afraid I have heard it supported by the Treasury Bench itself—is that the State can be generous in these matters; that is, be generous with other people's money. The hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. T. Thomson), whose speech I am criticising, is, I am afraid, representative of numerous Members of this House and of local authorities—I know them on the local authority of which I have the honour to be a member—who think it is possible to be generous and charitable with other people's money.

Sir W. ALLEN: At the risk of being considered importunate by the House, I must again refer to the question of my own country with regard to the Vote that is about to be passed by this House. I do not see why I, as an Irishman, should have to stand up in this House and beg and beseech the Government for fair play and fair dealing for my countrymen. Yet that is the position in which I find myself to-night on the question of the expenditure of this sum of £5,500,000. Surely it is not necessary at this hour of the day to tell the House that we are suffering from unemployment in Ireland like any other part of the United Kingdom. During the Recess, the Government
thought it right to appoint an Unemployment Committee to deal with this very serious question, and while my right hon. Friend who has charge of this Measure, was absent from this House a few moments, the hon. Member in charge took the opportunity to assure the Scottish Members of the House that the interests of Scotland would be very carefully safeguarded by the individual who represented Scotland on that Committee. I immediately put the question, "Is Ireland represented on that Committee?" The answer was, "I do not know." It is a most extraordinary state of affairs. Here we have a Government Department introducing measures which are for the purpose of relieving distress, and, in some cases, starvation, and they have only knowledge of three parts of the United Kingdom. I do not think this is a position in which we ought to be placed.
I understood from the Minister of Agriculture for England yesterday that he was carefully looking after the question of drainage for England and Wales, and I presume the Board of Health will look after that question for Scotland. I asked whether there was any of this money for my country, and the answer I got, in the first instance, was, that I must go to the Irish Board of Agriculture or the Irish Office to see if they had any money. After the right hon. Gentleman sat down, I again interrupted, and asked a similar question, and he again assured me that money for such purpose would have to be obtained from the Irish Board of Agriculture or the Irish Office. That is a most extraordinary explanation of the state of affairs from a Minister of the Government. I was almost going to call it loose thinking and loose replies on the part of the Minister. Where is the Irish Office or the Irish Board of Agriculture to get money for that purpose? Here is a special State grant, money that has been collected from all parts of the United Kingdom, to which Ireland contributes its share, and it think I might ask the right hon. Gentleman since when was the Irish Office or the Irish Board of Agriculture made a money-collecting Department? The right hon. Gentleman must have known perfectly well that they have no money there except money that is granted out of the public purse. They are not supposed to collect rates or taxes or inland revenue of any kind.
An hon. Member representing a Division of Scotland referred to the old Goschen ratio by which formerly sums were allocated to the several parts of the United Kingdom in fair proportion, and I think, as an Irishman, I am entitled to ask that the ordinary Goschen ratio of this £5,500,000 shall be applied to my country and to assist my countrymen in their distress through unemployment. I fear that, during the whole consideration of this question of unemployment, Ireland has been entirely left out of consideration. Why have we not a representative of the Irish nation on that Committee? I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman simply for fair play in this matter. I do not ask for any advantage over any other part of the United Kingdom. I simply ask for fair play. I wonder if the right hon. Gentleman could tell me whether, under any of the other heads in connection with the expenditure of this money, any of it is allocated to Ireland. He will tell me, perhaps, that it is not his business, and will refer me to some other Department. The Chief Secretary for Ireland was in the House a short time ago, and I thought perhaps he was going to help me to tackle the Government on the question, but he has disappeared. As my Scottish Friends have done very well out of this particular Vote, perhaps they will give me their assistance; but I do appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to see that at all events, in this matter of the £5,500,000, we get some slight consideration.
It is only common justice that I am asking for my country. I dare say, at the backs of the minds of those who were responsible for appointing this Committee, there might have been the thought, "Ireland has got her own Parliament now; let her look after this herself. "I might retort," Give us the power, and we will look after it. "However, that is not a point I have any right to develop. In the meantime, so long as we are contributing our share of all the taxes of the country to the State purse, I hold that we are entitled to our Goschen ratio of expenditure on our country. I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman, if he cannot now, at all events, in the near future, to see, first of all, that we have a representative on that Committee so that we may get our fair share, and that, during the course of the coming year, at all
events, he and his friends, and those who are responsible for the relief of unemployment, will see that Ireland is fairly and justly dealt with.

Mr. J. JONES: We have had to-night, once again, a repetition of the old argument as between those of us who are out for a solution of the unemployed difficulty on general principles, and those who look upon unemployment as a mere temporary social phenomenon. The hon. Member for Mossley (Mr. A. Hopkinson), whom I might describe as the hon. Member for misery, gave us a lecture upon our relative social positions, and he described the unemployed as able-bodied paupers, and he ought to know something about able-bodied paupers. Ho told us that a man who did not work for his own living was a pauper living upon the people who did. If we accept that definition, all the paupers will not be on one side. But we want to point out that the Bill does not pretend to solve, and the proposals before the House do not pretend to solve, the unemployment problem. They only pretend to ameliorate the present position caused by extraordinary circumstances, and we are voting money to local authorities for the purpose of carrying on relief work. Some of us have had experience of carrying out relief work. We know quite well that we are not in a position to-day to do what we should like to do. The right hon. Gentleman who is in charge of this proposition knows as well as I do that it is physically impossible for local authorities to carry out any scheme of relief work that will find work for all the people in the various localities who are out of work. There will be always a certain number of people who will be compelled to apply to another department of local administration for assistance. They will have to go to the board of guardians. There is not a proposal that the Government have brought forward in connection with their unemployment Measures which is going to find work for all the men who are out of employment—to say nothing of the women. We are asking that, at least, so far as we can find work for the unemployed, it shall be under decent conditions and provide a decent standard of living. Wages are coming down every day. Every day of our lives those of us who happen to be trade union officials are meeting employers around a table and discussing the question of the reduction of wages. We are con-
senting to reductions in wages, bringing the standard rate down to the lowest possible minimum; and now we are told that not only must we accept reductions in the standard of living, but we must agree that our members must be prepared to work—those who happen to be out of employment must be prepared to work—even for a lower standard than their unions have agreed to accept. What does that mean?
A large number of members of our unions are contributors under the National Insurance Act for unemployment purposes. What is going to happen to these men if under the scheme proposed by the Government they refuse to work? I am asking the right hon. Gentleman if he will meet me in this case. Take a member, say, of our own union, a Labourers' Union, composed of men who are engaged in what might be called casual labour. These are navvies, bricklayers' labourers, dockers, and people of that character. Suppose these men say, "We are not prepared to work at 25 ger cent. less than the standard rate in our district. Suppose these men say they are not prepared to accept these conditions, will they be debarred from receiving their unemployment pay from the Labour Exchange for which they have already been taxed? I would like to know where we stand. I should like to ask some of the trade unionists who walked into the Lobby the other night against us where we stand, and where they stand? Have we no standard rate of wages? Have we, simply because we are employed on public work, and that in a time of great necessity, are we, I ask, to surrender all our liberties as trade unionists, and work for less than the standard rate merely because there may be men who at the moment happen to be "down and out"? We have never accepted that position. That is why our trade union funds and our unemployment benefit have been established, on principle, to keep our men from accepting lower wages in time of depression. There was no other reason for the establishment of unemployment benefit. Now we are told that our men must be prepared to accept lower wages simply because they happen to be at the moment out of employment. If they refuse they can be debarred from the benefit of unemployment insurance that they have been taxed to pay for!
I suggest, therefore, to the right hon. Gentleman that he should meet our case. When it is argued, as it has been argued to-night, that the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Labour party must accept the situation, we say that we are not prepared to accept the position laid down. Then we have the hon. Member for Mossley (Mr. Hopkinson) telling us that the man who is unemployed and who manages to get work is benefiting at the expense of the honest worker who is in work—that the engineer, the boilermaker, and other classes of workmen will be receiving less wages than the man working on relief work. Who is responsible for that? Who has forced down the wages of the engineers? Who is responsible or has been responsible for compelling the workmen to accept lower wages? It was to use the unemployed workman against the employed workman! We have been told that if we do not accept these various reductions that we are going to stop the wheels of industry, and that they are going to compel us to accept any wages they like to inflict. Now they come along and make a virtue of necessity and say: "We are not going to accept the workman who is insisting upon the standard rate of wages." In the East End of London the local authorities will be administering this particular Act. I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he would like to go down there and administer it?

Sir A. MOND: Yes.

Mr. JONES: We will give you a hearty invitation then, but I am inclined to think that you would not go down to Swansea and administer it, let alone coming down to West Ham. I challenge you to go down to your own constituency and defend the proposals you are putting to the House to-night, and I will go down with you. I will resign my seat if you will resign yours, and fight you upon the issue of this proposition of 75 per cent. for the workman who is "down and out" for the time being, and because he is "down and out" has to work or less wages and has, we are told, got to accept a lower standard, indeed, the lowest standard of existence possible. There is not a man in this House who would be prepared to suggest that 25 per cent. below the standard of wages in a district is sufficient for a man to live upon. Nobody here will say so. Therefore we
are entitled to ask hon. Members who make these propositions and argue about the inefficiency of labour under the local authorities, these questions. What about the contractor? You are asking it's now to give a premium to the contractor as against the local authority. The contractor can employ any labour he likes and pay them the full rate; can he not?

Sir A. MOND: Certainly.

Mr. JONES: I agree. The contractor has then, of course, always the advantage over the local authorities. Does not the right hon. Gentleman requite of the local authorities that our work should be properly done? Ought we not to have the right to compete against the contractor? Should we not get the best possible labour to carry out our work? "Oh, but," you say, "the local authority must not employ the most efficient labour." We have got to take all the "down and outs," people who are not so efficient, and, therefore, our work is going to be handicapped because the contractors have an advantage over us. That is going to be the economic effect of the circular issued by the Ministry of Health. I might go further and say this. Everyone knows to-day that the local authorities are subject to pressure. Contractors are not—to the same extent—and only in so far as they happen to be well-in with the people who are in authority. We employ men and we pay them the rates, so far as we know, that we are allowed to pay. What is going to be the position of a local authority if we say that we are going to pay the full trade-union rate of wages for public work? Are we likely to be subjected to a surcharge in our own locality? We find it impossible to carry on public work without we give the local rate. What if we did not do that?

Sir F. BANBURY: There would be no distress!

Mr. JONES: Oh, I see that is the move, is it? Get men to work cheaply so that wages will be automatically reduced, and then those who refuse to work at 25 per cent. less are going to be thrown upon the streets and told that they are work-shy. Is that the game? I venture to suggest if that is understood by the workers outside that there is going to be more fun this winter than some of you dream about. There are some here who represent the rich unemployed. I am speaking for the
poor unemployed. Evidently the only thing that is going to be given to him in consideration of the fact that the workman has been good enough to defend your property and keep the Germans from invading you—is that he has to come back now and accept work tinder conditions that you would not have offered him in the days of prosperity. Then he could demand his price. Now he has to accept 25 per cent. less than the standard rate fixed by the trade unions of which he may happen to be a member. The right hon. Gentleman says that the men employed on relief work are 50 per cent. less efficient than the ordinary labour employed on similar kinds of work. I say that that is not true.

Sir A. MOND indicated dissent.

Mr. JONES: Well, I have had more experience than you have had—

Mr. SPEAKER: Perhaps the hon. Member for Silvertown will be good enough to remember that Speeches are addressed to me in the Chair, and not to individual Members.

Mr. JONES: I am sorry, Sir, I cannot see you so well as I can the right hon. Gentleman. I have had more experience in dealing with unemployment from the local point of view if not from the national standpoint, and I have had more experience of the administration of schemes of relief. I have found this, that, on the average, unemployed labour is about 25 per cent. less efficient than ordinary labour. What. I want to point out to the right hon. Gentleman is that you never begin to give the unemployed man work until he is nearly physically and mentally reduced. He has been out of work for weeks. He is sold up. He has pawned all that he is capable of pawning and selling. He is physically emaciated, and then somebody thinks of doing something, and gives the man work at a time when he has to recoup the previous losses, and he goes to work very often when he is absolutely unable to do the work he is called upon to do. Most of this work is hard, physical work which the man is not altogether capable of doing. Therefore, I venture to suggest you ought not to penalise a man because society has neglected him.
The State was talked about by the hon. Gentleman opposite. We do not look upon the State as something containing
separate masses of people. We look upon the State as the whole community—that we are each other's keeper, and those men who have been neglected in the past are as much a part of the State as the richest man in this House or outside of it. Consequently, we claim these men are a charge upon the State, and we are asking that consideration of past services should be given, and that the State ought to recognise the men. In a previous discussion I said that this was not only a matter of trade union rates. I said that some people seem to imagine that the trade union rates of wages was the highest conception we have of a man's value. Nothing of the kind. The trade union rate is the minimum rate. It is only a recognition of the minimum standard of comfort, and if you want to pay any more, do it if the man is worth it. We claim that the trade union rate is the standard minimum for the workman and his wife and family, and consequently we protest against the limitation. We ask the right hon. Gentleman to remember that we are members of the Association of Municipal Corporations. We ask him to admit the claim they made to him, representing, as they did, the great municipal corporations of the country. These are not labour bodies: most of them are non-labour bodies. They, and we, ask him to give us consent to administer this matter from our own point of view in our own locality. Let us decide the conditions in our own districts. If a locality says that a certain rate should be the rate, let that be the rate. If another locality says let so-and-so be the rate, let that be the rate there. Let us in this matter have self-determination in local affairs. Give us whatever grant you think you ought to give us. You have a right to fix the amount we shall receive to carry these schemes into effect, but let us have the determining voice in fixing the standard rate of wages and conditions of employment.
Take the case of West Ham. We are running a scheme to-day and finding work for the unemployed there, and we are paying the full rate of wages. We are not working the full number of hours laid down by the trade unions. Could not the right hon. Gentleman give us this concession that so long as we did not
exceed a certain maximum per man we should have the right to fix the number of hours?

Sir A. MOND: I will consider it, but I cannot give an answer now.

Mr. JONES: You are asking us to cut down the standard rate, and we cannot do it. We ask for liberty to fix the rate within our own constituency. If we have to pay 25 per cent. less, we are going to have an enormous amount of trouble which instead of alleviating existing distress will create more trouble than ever existed before. I am fearful of what is going to happen this winter. Let the Government in this matter give us a free hand, and allow local authorities the right to say what the conditions shall be for their own schemes. If the Government will do that they will help us very considerably out of the difficult position in which we are now placed.

Dr. ADDISON: When this matter first came forward I suggested to my right hon. Friend that these conditions would prove to be unworkable. I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman if he cannot give some form of local autonomy, and not place local authorities in the position that they may be subject to various pains and penalties if they find they cannot work under these conditions, which I am quite sure will be found to be unworkable. The Association of Municipal Corporations would not have expressed the opinion that these conditions should not be applied to all grants if they did not know that in their own localities they would not be able to work them, and the reason is fairly obvious. I well remember some time ago that inquiries were made from local authorities on this point, and the answer which came back, I believe without exception, was that conditions of this sort would prove to be unworkable. And why?
In the first place, the conditions do not apply to the men employed by a contractor who may be making a road under an arrangement with the Minister of Transport. Those men will be paid the ordinary rate of wages for skilled and unskilled men on that job. The local authority, in respect of a scheme which is not receiving this grant, will be carrying on the work in various ways. On certain work they would be paid the ordinary unskilled labourer's rate to the
men employed, but now it is suggested that a particular section of the work of the authorities should be picked out and the men will be told that on that particular work they will only be paid 75 per cent. of the district rate for skilled or unskilled workers, while you are at the same time actually employing men in the next street at the ordinary rates. The thing will not work, and no local authority will be able to work the scheme.
This arrangement is founded upon a wrong principle. We have been told that the money for this work comes out of the producers' pocket, and that is perfectly true. The same would apply to the money we pay through the boards of guardians or the local authorities, which in the end comes out of the pockets of the producers and the community. The only question is how is the money to be spent? One particular man will be receiving help through the guardians, and according to the scale he may be getting as much or more from the guardians if he has a wife and family as the man who is being paid the full district rate. This is placing a further premium upon the expenditure of money on the scale of relief in return for no work at all.
Another result will be that you will force into these schemes the less competent section of labour. It is perfectly clear that the labour employed by local authorities upon ordinary undertakings and by the ordinary contractor, whether unskilled labour or not, or whatever the conditions, will receive the district rate and the best labourers will go there first. Consequently, the local authorities, in respect of those conditions, will only have the leavings of labour because you are forcing upon them the less competent men. Then you turn round and say, "These relief works are shown to be uneconomical, because you do not get a good output." At the same time you are forcing upon the local authorities the less competent men, and the scheme will work in a vicious circle. If this condition is attached the right hon. Gentleman will be able to show that they are less competent, because the very condition itself does not give them a chance.
There is one other matter which relates to the principle. The principle ought to be, if a man is employed to do this work, and does it as well as he can, he should receive the district rate, but if he is a slacker and not trying to work, then he
ought to be dismissed. If he is trying to do the work as well as he can under good management, he should be paid what is agreed upon in the district for that job, and that principle should apply all round. The right hon. Gentleman will persist in calling these relief works, but what does that mean? Does it mean the local authorities are to do something which does not require doing? I do not think we ought to ask a local authority to do any work under such conditions, because they have in their possession so many schemes of works that are really required, and they have plenty to pick from in regard to work of local improvements. Relief work ought not to be any kind of work except that which is really required to be done. Under these circumstances, the work would be done now instead of being postponed. I hope the expression "relief works" will not he held to mean to encourage local authorities to undertake work which does not need to be done.

Sir A. MOND: I quite agree with my right hon. Friend.

Dr. ADDISON: I think it is unfortunate that the words "relief work" should be used if they are allowed to have that interpretation. We now find ourselves in the position that the local authorities will be doing something in anticipation that requires to be done, and which if it were done in the ordinary way they would have to pay the ordinary rates of wages. Simply because these men happen to be unemployed you are going to pay them for doing the same work less than they would otherwise be paid by the local authorities. That is unjust. I know the right hon. Gentleman is somewhat tied up by what he has said before, but at all events I hope he will agree that there should be more local autonomy in this matter. I remember the Corporation of Liverpool expressing, through some of their most important members, the strongest possible objection to this proposal. Nobody will accuse the members of the Liverpool Corporation of being influenced by the Labour party because they are mostly Conservatives in politics, but they were vehemently opposed to the principle which the right hon. Gentleman is adopting being applied in their district.
Another point I wish to raise is where the local authority is not able to raise
the loan on their own credit. In that case, does the right hon. Gentleman propose to take any steps to combine together, or give assistance, to local authorities in respect to raising those loans. It is a fact that the poorer the authority the weaker is its credit, in fact, it has no credit at all. During the past two years, in respect to many of these authorities, they found themselves quite unable to raise money in any way to any great extent, and the result has been that devices have had to be instituted for helping these people to raise the money. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be able to assure us that that system will still be applied to the raising of loans for such authorities. If these grants are only to be made to those local authorities which can raise loans themselves, by that very condition you will write off the slate a large number of the most needy authorities who could not raise even 50 per cent. of the loans. I hope the same means will be continued to assist those needy authorities in regard to which we have found it necessary, in respect of other matters, to assist during the past few years. If this condition is not, applied in a hard and fast manner, we may have some hope. I gather that the right hon. Gentleman is thinking over some modification in respect of wages, and I hope also that he will be able to give us some assurance in respect of the conditions applying to loans.

Mr. G. EDWARDS: I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman if the 25 per cent. less than the wages being paid in the district applies to roadmen?

Sir A. MOND: Not if it is done by contract.

7.0 P.M.

Mr. EDWARDS: I wish to point out that this proposal is going to hit very hardly one of the most hard-working bodies of workers in the country. Since yesterday I have ascertained that we have no less than 20,000 agricultural labourers who are out of work through no fault of their own. What kind of wage are you going to inflict on these men? They are out of work through no fault of their own, and they are a decent class of workers. Owing to the treacherous conduct of the Government to this particular class of workman through the abolition
of the Wages Board, their wages are clown by 10s. a week below 36s. These men are thrown out of work, and the work now offered to them is the hardest that you can set a man to do. I know what it is to put stones on a road, to break the stones, and to put in 8 or 9 hours' work a day. Here you will employ a class of workers capable of doing the best work. They have strong brawny arms, and in spite of what has been said about them they have as good brains with which to carry out their work as any other class. Yet you want to se[...] them to work on the roads at 25 per cent. lower wage than the service rate.

Sir A. MOND: Not 25 per cent. below the service rate, but 25 per cent. below the wages paid for road making, which are a great deal more.

Mr. EDWARDS: Which approximates to the labourer's wage. I understand it is 25 per cent. lower than the labourer's wage.

Sir A. MOND: It applies to road making.

Mr. EDWARDS: The roadman are getting the same wage as the agricultural labourers. Does the right hon. Gentleman think that the farmers who compose the local authorities, and who sit on the district councils and the county councils, are going to pay a roadman more than they pay an agricultural labourer? If he does, he does not understand a farm quite as well as I do. I wish to point out the gross injustice which is being done to these men.

Sir A. MOND: The hon. Gentleman is wrong in his facts. I am not appalled by the gross injustice, for I have pointed out twice that he is wrong.

Mr. EDWARDS: I wish to point out that the sum you are going to allocate for the various work to be done is absolutely inadequate, but unfortunately the Minister of Agriculture is not here to-night. I would like to support what the right hon. Member for Shoreditch (Dr. Addison) said. What will happen to the agricultural labourers? They will say, we cannon work, and I defy the right hon. Gentleman to find any man who can keep a wife and five children on 25 per cent. below 36s. a week and do an efficient day's work. The men will say, "We cannot do the work," and
they will have to go to the board of guardians. There is any quantity of work in our rural districts which needs to be done, and which ought never to be termed relief work. The roads in the rural districts are in a terrible bad state. Their repair is needful work, and if it is needful you ought to pay the men a living wage to do it.
I see that a sum of money is going to be allocated for work on the land, for afforestation and for drainage. Is afforestation relief work? It is work that will prove an asset to this country, and which will make the land more valuable. £250,000 is allocated to this useful work, which needs to be done for the benefit of the nation. There is sufficient land in this country for the production of wood and timber, and there is no need for a solitary agricultural labourer or any other worker to be out of work if you would but allocate sufficient money for that purpose. I enter the strongest protest, on behalf of this class of worker, who has been the longest neglected. I can recall the days when the right hon. Gentleman (Sir A. Mond) spoke of the agricultural labourer as being the salt of the earth. Now he is going to treat him as if he were one of the very worst. Men are standing about idle while their children are starving, yet you are going to offer them 25 per cent. less than 36s. a week. If the farmers have their way, with the help the Government are giving them, we shall have the wage. very much lower than it is now. Here we have a most honest, hardworking class of men, who will get the work done, and they are being offered a mean, contemptible wage.

Dr. MURRAY: I should like to back with my sympathy the remark made by the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Edwards). A great deal of the work, such as afforestation and road-making, will be done by men who cannot live in their own homes. They will have to maintain themselves away from home and endeavour at the same time to support their families at home. At present men engaged on work of that kind are living on what the drapers call "rock-bottom" wages. If you are going to reduce wages, such as are paid in the Highlands, by 25 per cent. then—

Sir A. MOND: I think it would facilitate discussion if hon. Members would follow the statements which have been made. The Minister of Agriculture stated yesterday that there would be no
reduction in the agricultural district rate for land drainage or afforestation.

Dr. MURRAY: For road-making?

Sir A. MOND: Yes, certainly.

Mr. EDWARDS: I beg the right hon. Gentleman's pardon. He admitted, when I asked the question, that it would be for road-making.

Sir A. MOND: Not 25 per cent. below 36s., but 25 per cent. below the average road-maker's wage. I am informed that the average wage is 70s. a week. If the hon. Gentleman will deduct 25 per cent. from 70s., he will see the difference. No road-making authority pays its men 36s. a week.

Mr. EDWARDS: Will the right hon. Gentleman kindly tell us in what district the men are getting 70s. a week? In my own county they are only getting 36s.

Sir A. MOND: Is that for road-making or for road maintenance?

Mr. EDWARDS: Both of them, in the same way.

Dr. MURRAY: I think the right hon. Gentleman is out in his facts. At any rate, he is very far out with regard to Scotland. The rate of wages for road-making and road maintenance in the Highlands at present is just as low as any man can possibly live on away from home and keep his family going at home at the same time. My hon. Friend for North Armagh (Sir W. Allen) appealed to the Scottish Members in the House to help him to get special consideration for his particular island. I think the best way to help the hon. and gallant Member is to emphasise the need for special consideration for other parts of the country further removed than Westminster. The Highlands comprise a part of the country which, like Ireland is apt to be overlooked in this connection and I am quite in sympathy with my hon. Friend. In passing, I would say that when we get Home Rule for Scotland we shall not come to this Parliament to obtain aid for schemes of this sort.
I wish to point out that unemployment is just as great an evil, relatively, in the Highlands as it is in the big centres, but the lines on which provision for unemployment is going to be laid clown here are not the proper ones for Scotland.
During the last decade, and, indeed, the last half-century, Scotland has been depopulated by emigration and migration. The amount of unemployment which exists at the present time will accelerate the depopulation of the Highlands to a much greater degree. Indeed, if things go on as they are now, in a few years the only persons you will meet in the Highlands of Scotland will be, perhaps, an odd, benighted Cabinet Minister who may have lost his way on the road to Gairloch. The amount of unemployment in Scotland at the present time is bound to increase the rate of depopulation. I am sorry that representatives of the Scottish Office are not here to impress on the Government the necessity for not forgetting this portion of the country when the allocation of the grants is made.
There is the question of roads. Nothing is more needed in the Highlands than roads for people to get to and from market. I do not regard this as relief work at all, and I am glad that my hon. Friend (Mr. Edwards) and other hon. Members protested against styling these works relief works. They are works of public, utility. So far as the Highlands are concerned, road-making has been a crying need for generations past, and people have been appealing to the Board of Agriculture and the Scottish Office to help them; not to pauperise them, but to give them the ordinary facilities of civilisation, so that their economic life may develop and may not be allowed to decay as it is doing at the present time. I hope in this connection—to use an Irishism that piers may be regarded as roads. In many of those parts piers are a most claimant need. When the right hon. Gentleman pays his next visit to Gairloch it may be by sea, and I should like to see him provided with comfortable piers along the coast at which he could land, instead of his being stranded in motor cars on the roads, as he was before. I am glad he has learned the lesson of the need of roads in the Highlands, and I hope he will see to it that a good deal of this grant is allocated to them, and so secure that his next journey there may be much more comfortable than it was on the last occasion.
There is another body that meets at Inverness as well as the Cabinet. It is called the Highland Reconstruction Committee, and it passes most pathetic
resolutions from time to time and sends them to Members of Parliament and to the Government advocating schemes of public utility. I would commend these schemes to the Government as useful works on which the unemployed might be engaged. There is another thing which adds to the evil of unemployment in the Western Highlands and islands at the present time and that is the failure of the potato crop in the Highlands, and especially in the western districts. These potatoes are almost as basic an article as food as they are in Ireland. Unfortunately the potato crop has been a total failure on the western coast this year, and, consequently, the people are in much greater need of help of this sort than they have been for generations past. That, coupled with the complete failure of the herring fishery, due to the closing of the Russian market, has produced conditions which are worse than they have ever been within the memory of living man. Therefore, I do hope that the Government will proceed with the light railway which is required and that they will also provide the piers and quays which are necessary in order that trade can be carried on in some degree of comfort. I want the Government to take note in their unemployment policy of these opportunities for doing work in the land of the 51st Division.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of TRANSPORT (Mr. A. Neal): I only interpose in the Debate for the purpose of clearing up a manifest misconception in the mind of the hon. Member opposite with regard to the grants we are ma-king in connection with roads. My hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Edwards), I think must have had in mind the men normally engaged in preparing the surface of the roads. He was no doubt thinking particularly of road work done in the ordinary way by the road makers employed by the various highway authorities. I would like at once to say that that class of work is not within the Vote which the House is discussing at this moment. That work is dealt with through classification grants made to the highway authorities. The men employed on them will therefore receive the usual road wages. This Vote deals- with the expenditure in aid of the acceleration of work on what we have come to call arterial roads.
The greater part of this money will be spent in and about the metropolis. Schemes have been published which include a big road, 21 miles in length, running out to Southend, and a substantial number of improvements of other roads in the districts around the metropolis. It is intended that this work shall be undertaken by the Government themselves through contractors, and therefore the question which my hon. Friend has in mind will not really arise in reference to the great hulk of the expenditure. As to the roads which are to be done in the provinces, they will be done at the option of the authorities concerned either by direct labour or by contract. So far as they are done by direct labour they will be subject to the condition of a 25 per cent. reduction from the wages paid for a probationary period to unskilled persons who come new to the work. I cannot help thinking that the. great mass of the work will be done by the local authorities under the contract system.
I have only one other thing to say. The House will remember that associated with the Government grant is money which is being found from the Road Fund. That Road Fund is provided by a special class of persons, namely, the users of mechanical traffic. The fund is a statutory fund which has to be administered in accordance with the terms of the Statute, and which ought to be administered in all fairness to secure economic results. It is unfair to tax a particular part of the community for a special purpose and then to use the fund which is so provided simply as a general fund in relief of unemployment. There is therefore a special duty on the Ministry of Transport to see that a fair economic use is made of this fund. Within these limits we are doing all we can to provide for a maximum amount of labour, and we have done so up till now with very considerable success. I trust what I have said will, if it does not remove the fears of my hon. Friend, at any rate, alleviate them, so substantially as to make him trouble no more about the question of the wages to be paid in connection with road making.

Mr. W. R. SMITH: I rise for the purpose of securing clearness as to the position in so far as rural workers are concerned. If I understand the position correctly, this Vote under which the
money is being granted comes under the Department of the Minister of Health, and all regulations governing the expenditure of the money will be issued by the Department.

Sir A. MOND: No, the President of the Board of Agriculture will cover works with which that Board are concerned.

Mr. SMITH: It is clear that men engaged on afforestation or land drainage works will be paid the full agricultural rate of wages, namely, that fixed by the Agricultural Committees.

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Sir Arthur Boscawen): I said so yesterday

Mr. SMITH: Yes, but the right hon. Gentleman will perhaps admit that things do not always work out in practice exactly as they are stated in this House, and, frequently, we have decisions come to which Members who were concerned in the passing of the Act feel are not in entire accord with what they had in their minds. I was not certain in this case that, it would be exactly as has been stated. Apart from that one can appreciate the fact that in rural districts wages are not going to be reduced to that extent. I should like to ask one further point following what has been said by the representative of the Ministry of Transport. If district councils develop work in the way of road making and they have minor roads under their charge, will they be able to pay less than the agricultural rate of wages?

Mr. NEAL: I have endeavoured to make that quite clear. My hon. Friend speaks of district councils having minor roads under their care. If a. road comes within the classification of the first or second class, then it will benefit under the ordinary scheme by the 50 per cent. or 25 per cent. assistance towards the cost of upkeep. But I was dealing with the new arterial roads which cannot come under rural district councils, and must be dealt with by highway authorities such as the county and borough councils or urban district councils.

Mr. SMITH: Then I take it that this grant has no application to the district councils and the question so far as it affects rural districts will not arise. I would like to emphasise, if I may, one
or two of the points advanced by the hon. Member for Silvertown (Mr. Jones). Is it not possible for his suggestion to be adopted for giving the local authorities some discretionary power with regard to the payment of wages for this class of work? The hon. Member rather emphasised the unfairness of the position of local authorities if this condition is rigidly enforced. He asked whether or not it was felt that the work done by local authorities or by public authorities was 25 per cent. less in value than that done by contractors. I rather thought the right hon. Gentleman endorsed the view that that was so, when the comment was made, and I thought it was a strange contrast to his own statement, made some months ago in this House, when he demonstrated by facts and figures that the Office of Works, of which he was then the head, had been able to carry out work considerably cheaper and more efficiently than contractors had done, and that he had accomplished it at an advantage to the community.
If that is the case, surely it must strike the right hon. Gentleman that local authorities in carrying out these schemes of work with a Works Department which probably is just as efficient and as effective for the purpose as was the Department of which the right hon. Gentleman was in charge, in employing this labour on extended schemes, will get just as good value from the labour employed as if the men were employed directly by a contractor. It would be most unfair, merely because a man is unemployed now and takes work under the local authority, that he should be compelled to accept a wage 25 per cent. less than he would have received had he been employed by a contractor. I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider this question from the standpoint of giving the local authorities some discretion in this matter, and not to the them down so rigidly that they must, without any relation whatever to the quality of the labour in which they are engaged, and without any regard to the circumstances, pay these men a rate of wages 25 per cent. less than they would receive if working for a contractor, although the value of the service given under the local authority may be just as effective and just as good as that given when working for a private contractor.

Major GLYN: Before we pass the discussion of this Vote I should like to put in one plea as regards Scotland. I think the hon. Member for the Western Isles (Dr. Murray) is under some misconception with regard to the average payment to roadmen in Scotland. I think he will find that in the whole of the Highland counties the pay averages 60s. per week. It would be more efficacious if the authorities concerned in carrying out the relief works would go to those districts where large populations have been assembled during the boom in trade—districts which, as a result, went fast ahead, but which, now slack times have come, are going back just as quickly. Although I am personally most grateful to the Secretary for Scotland and all the officials of his Department when one makes application to them, I am sure the Minister of Health will agree that it is very necessary to set up some sort of machinery in Scotland which will fuse into one all the different points which are dealt with by local authorities. I myself brought one case to the notice of the Scottish Office some seven weeks ago, but can get no decision upon it. That is not the fault of the Scottish Office, but because the matter is perpetually referred to one authority or another, or one Committee or another. That does not help the local authority or the unemployed people in question, and I would urge the right. hon. Gentleman to consider the method of organisation for Scotland and for other outlying parts of the United Kingdom, and to endeavour to expedite these matters so that we can get a quicker decision.

Lieut.-Colonel J. WARD: I desire to refer to a point which it is necessary to put forward, but which I have not heard stated during this discussion. Practically all that is contemplated by the proposals contained in this Estimate is the ordinary humdrum work of the different local authorities. I should have thought that, in dealing with a matter of such great importance as the unemployment which exists in this country to-day, it would have been considered essential in some cases to carry out even more important public works than it is possible for the existing local authorities to carry out, and that some provision would be made for setting up machinery for dealing with schemes of a. really national character. For some considerable time I served upon two Com-
missions, one dealing with forestry and the other with coast erosion, and we also dove-tailed our work with that of another commission, namely, the Canal Commission, which was sitting at the same time. The Reports of those three Commissions, if they were taken into consideration to-day, would provide a beginning for the establishment of works which, partially at any rate, would be immediately remunerative. Schemes were worked out on the basis of the engineering and other expert advice that was given, but they are, I suppose, stored away in the pigeon-holes of the different offices, with no mortal intention of bringing the experience and the evidence that was then gained into contact with the. problems with which we are now dealing—just as, in dealing even with great national emergencies like war, nine-tenths of the information secured by our officials is absolutely useless, for no one thinks of it when the emergency arises. I am afraid that that is the case now. I well remember that in the Canal Commission a suggestion was made that, if ever such an emergency arose as that which exists to-day, with thousands of men out of work, a huge canal scheme might be carried out. The whole thing, even to the depths and the levels, was sketched out with precision, and the amount of excavation and machinery was gone into that would be necessary for making, for instance, something like a deep-water canal from the Mersey to Edinburgh. That was put forward by the Canal Commission as a feasible, workable and economical scheme some eight or nine years ago.
It is on that sort of work that this money really ought to have been spent. I do not say that you could always get exactly the type of man for that kind of work, but you could get sufficient to lead and show the others. That work would be extremely useful when one considers the want of railway facilities and the way in which the enormous expense of railway transport cripples the industries of Birmingham, the Potteries, and the other districts through which such a canal would pass. I am only dealing with one suggestion which I myself went into. There may be other schemes of equal importance; and it is something approaching nonsense to suggest that, in an emergency of this description, work cannot be found which will be of value to the community
in the future, instead of spending millions on doles without any result or return whatever. I should have imagined, therefore, that the Minister would at least have put forward some suggestion for adding machinery to that of the local bodies existing to-day. For instance, no county council could undertake a scheme of the description I have mentioned. It would take half-a-dozen county councils, who would, first of all, have to meet and hold conferences, and years of time and energy would be wasted before the scheme could be put into working order. On the other hand, as we are voting millions of money for public works, seine of them more or less important, some probably useless, it is surprising that no suggestion has been made that machinery should be set up by which the great proposals put forward by different commissions during the last 16 or 17 years might have been put into operation.
I rise particularly to make good a point that was made by another hon. Member with regard to the wages that it is proposed to pay. I should certainly like the Minister of Agriculture to press upon his friend the Minister of Health the adoption of a similar policy with reference to wages on public works of an ordinary character connected with the administration of our urban and rural areas, to the policy suggested in the case of agriculture. I am now speaking as the secretary of the Public Works and Constructional Operatives' Union, and I can see quite clearly that what is going to happen is that the standard rate of wages, which was set up after much labour and much criticism by this industry for public works generally throughout the country, is going to be whittled away unconsciously to the extent of 25 per cent. by the operation of the proposals of the Minister of Health. I said "unconsciously," but I have here a document which shows that it will not be unconscious. The Bradford Corporation have obtained powers to build the Spa reservoir at Pateley Bridge, and they are getting on with the work and developing it as rapidly as they can; but the moment the principle of a 25 per cent. reduction is adopted by this House, they are going to come to our board and demand that, if the Government gives them a grant, the men must agree to work for 25 per cent. less wages than they are receiving to-day. What is
the use of conciliation boards and industrial courts setting up rates of pay if we are going to scrap the whole lot by making ordinary public works into relief works, and securing a 25 per cent. reduction in the pay for that class of work?
At the present moment there are not in this country more than about 60,000 men employed on public works, whereas before the War, for many years, there were from 160,000 to 180,000 men regularly employed on works of public utility in this country. Therefore there must be a floating population of anything from 80,000 to 100,000 of actual public works men, capable of earning the highest trade union rate of wages, who are out of work at the present time. Those men are going to be given a chance to work at their ordinary trade, at which they could earn decent and proper wages such as the trade ought to pay; and they are going to be asked, since these are relief works, or will be called relief works, because the Government is assisting in their construction, to accept a 25 per cent. reduction on their pay. It may suit all the tinkers and tailors and candlestick makers that you are going to introduce into this business, and probably even a reduction of 25 per cent. will not give you an economic value for your money in their case; but in the case of the regular public works men, who earn their living, when trade is going regularly, at this hard and laborious and technical work, to suggest that they should go back to their own ordinary employment at 25 per cent. under what they really ought to receive, just because the Government is giving relief financially to that kind of work, is absurd. Some arrangement at least ought to have been made for a probationary period of, say, 3 or 4 months, during which a man who does not know how to dig, who does not know how to concrete, who does not know how to level a road or prepare for a kerb or prepare the camber of the road or do the metalling in a proper and scientific manner, might be learning these things, and during which, if he were employed upon works of the nature of relief works, his wage might be 25 per cent. less than the standard rate; but that

you should ask the expert, the man who usually follows that occupation and whose business it is, merely because the Government are rendering some financial assistance, to accept 25 per cent. less than his ordinary wages—which are quite low enough now—is utterly absurd.

On the other hand, I would cross swords with the hon. Member who says that each locality should decide for itself. I object to that. The Constructional Conciliation Board have settled the rates of pay for public works for every town and village in the country. We have a national agreement fixing those wages, and we object to little localities deciding against our stabilised regular wage throughout the country. It is surprising, however, that we should be the only people who are hit. It is our regular occupation. Nearly 200,000 men are generally occupied in this class of work, and now you are going to flood everyone into it and do all the work, so that we are to be permanently unemployed afterwards. You might avoid that altogether. If, instead of prompting local authorities to do their ordinary work, upon which their ordinary staffs would be regularly employed, you had suggested additional machinery and undertaking great national work of public utility which Royal Commissions in the past recommended should be carried out under such exceptional circumstances as the present, you would have shown some foresight, but you are going to hurry up the ordinary work of municipalities and you are going to get it done at 25 per cent. under the proper rate, and by and by the men whose business it is to carry on that regular occupation will practically find no work to do. It would be better to take my advice and, parallel with your present proposals, put forward some tangible scheme so that there might be. machinery brought into existence and these good works long since recommended and long since overdue for the development of trade and industry may be put into execution.

Question put, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

The House divided: Ayes, 150; Noes, 49.

Division NO. 370,]
AYES
[7.48 p.m.


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Bird, Sir A. (Wolverhampton, West)


Ainsworth, Captain Charles
Banner, Sir John S. Harmood-
Boscawen, Rt. Hon. Sir A. Griffith


Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Colonel Martin
Barnett, Major Richard W.
Bowyer, Captain G. W. E.


Armstrong, Henry Bruce
Barnston, Major Harry
Breese, Major Charles E.


Baird, Sir John Lawrence
Bellairs, Commander Carlyon w.
Broad, Thomas Tucker


Brown, T. W. (Down, North)
Hailwood, Augustine
Peel, Col. Hn. S. (Uxbridge, Mddx.)


Buchanan, Lieut.-Colonel A. L. H.
Hall, Rr-Admi Sir W. (Liv'p'l. W.D'by)
Pennefather, De Fonblanque


Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Harmsworth, C. B, (Bedford, Luton)
Perkins, Walter Frank


Burn, Col. C. R (Devon, Torquay)
Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)
Pratt, John William


Butcher, Sir John George
Hewart, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon
Purchase, H. G.


Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.
Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank
Raeburn, Sir William H.


Carr, W. Theodore
Hood, Joseph
Ratcliffe, Henry Butler


Casey, T. w.
Hope, Sir H. (Stirling & Cl'ckm'nn, W.)
Rees, Sir J. D. (Nottingham, East)


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Evelyn (Birm., Aston)
Hopkins, John W. W.
Rees, Capt. J. Tudor (Barnstaple)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A.(Birm., W.)
Horne, Edgar (Surrey, Guildford)
Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)


Chichester, Col. Robert
Hudson, R. M.
Rodger, A. K.


Churchman, Sir Arthur
Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis
Roundell, Colonel R. F.


Clough, Sir Robert
Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster)
Royds, Lieut.-Colonel Edmund


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Hurd, Percy A.
Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert Arthur


Cope, Major William
Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.
Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Seddon, J. A.


Croft, Lieut.-Colonel Henry Page
Jephcott, A. R.
Shaw, William T. (Forfar)


Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)
Jesson, C.
Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T.)


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Johnson, Sir Stanley
Smithers, Sir Alfred W.


Denniss, Edmund R. B. (Oldham)
Johnstone, Joseph
Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander


Doyle, N. Grattan
Jones, Sir Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Stanler, Captain Sir Beville


Edgar, Clifford B.
Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)
Stanley, Major Hon. G. (Preston)


Edge, Captain William
Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly)
Stanton, Charles Butt


Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)
Kellaway, Rt. Hon. Fredk. George
Stewart, Gershom


Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Sutherland, Sir William


Evans, Ernest
Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ., Wales)
Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell (Maryhill)


Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M.
Locker-Lampson, Com, O. (H'tingd'n)
Thorpe, Captain John Henry


Fell, Sir Arthur
Lorden, John William
Townshend, Sir Charles Vere Ferrers


Fildes, Henry
Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.
Turton, Edmund Russborough


Flannery, Sir James Fortescue
Marriott, John Arthur Ransome
Waddington. R.


Ford, Patrick Johnston
Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred Moritz
Walton, J. (York, W. R., Don Valley)


Forrest, Walter
Moreing, Captain Algernon H.
Ward, William Dudley (Southampton)


Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot
Morris, Richard
Wild, Sir Ernest Edward


Fraser, Major Sir Keith
Morrison, Hugh
Williams, C. (Tavistock)


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Murchison, C. K.
Williams, Lt.-Col. Sir R. (Banbury)


Ganzoni, Sir John
Murray, C. D. (Edinburgh)
Willoughby, Lieut.-Col. Hon. Claud


Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham
Murray, Hon. Gideon (St. Rollox)
Wise, Frederick


Gilbert, James Daniel
Neal, Arthur
Wolmer, Viscount


Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel Sir John
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Wood, Hon. Edward F. L. (Ripon)


Glyn, Major Ralph
Nicholson, Brig-Gen. J, (Westminster)
Worsfold, T. Cato


Goff, Sir R. Park
Nicholson, Reginald (Doncaster)
Young, E. H. (Norwich)


Gray, Major Ernest (Accrington)
Nield, Sir Herbert
Young, sir Frederick W. (Swindon)


Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)
Norris, Colonel Sir Henry G.
Younger, Sir George


Greenwood, William (Stockport)
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Hush



Gregory, Holman
Parker, James
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Gwynne, Rupert S.
Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry
 Mr. McCurdy and Colonel Leslie Wilson.


NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. William
Hartshorn, Vernon
Spoor, B. G.


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Hayward, Evan
Swan, J. E.


Barnes, Major H (Newcastle, E)
Hirst, G. H.
Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Hodge, Rt. Hon. John
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Cairns, John
Hogge, James Myles
Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince)


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Irving, Dan
Watts-Morgan, Lieut.-Col. D.


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Wedgwood, Colonel Joslah C.


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwelity)
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
White, Charles F. (Derby, Western)


Edwards, G. (Norfolk, South)
Lawson, John James
Wignall, James


Entwistle, Major C. F.
Lunn, William
Williams, Aneurin (Durham, Consett)


Finney, Samuel
Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness & Ross)
Wilson, James (Dudley)


Galbraith, Samuel
O'Grady, Captain James
Wintringham, Margaret


Gillis, William
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)


Glanville, Harold James
Raffan, Peter Wilson



Grundy, T. W.
Rendall, Athelstan
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Guest, J. (York, W. R., Hemsworth)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Mr. T. Shaw and Mr. Walter Smith.


Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Roberts, Rt. Hon. G. H. (Norwich)



Halls, Walter
Robertson, John



Question put and agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

Mr. MOSLEY: Before we leave this Vote and subscribe yet another £15,000 to the Government's latest speculation in oil, we might at least inquire whether or not the gamble prospers. After all, the other little enterprises of the Govern-
ment of a similar nature have not been altogether successful. The celebrated case of Nauru Island, which was held out as a very good bargain, did not mature. The good bargain of which we hoped great things in the cellulose line also did not mature. This evening, before we subscribe another £15,000 of the taxpayers' money to this gamble in oil, we are entitled to inquire whether or not this latest and most promising venture has proved successful. I may remind the House that an agree-
ment was entered into in 1919 between the Australian and the British Governments and the Persian Oil Company under which the English Government entered into a search for oil in Papua together with the Australian Government, employing the Anglo-Persian Oil Company as their agent. Our total liability was limited to £50,000. Fifteen thousand pounds was subscribed in 1920, £20,000 in the Estimates this year, and now, before the end of the year we are asked to subscribe the balance which, I understood, would not, at any rate, be required prior to next year.
8.0 P.M.
The terms of the agreement, as I understand, have never yet been published. I understand there was an agreement, which had not yet seen the light of day, between the two Governments to employ a private company to prospect for oil, many of whose directors were derived from the higher branches of the public service. An agreement of that sort should certainly at this stage of affairs, if not before, be exposed to the survey of the House. The policy of investing Government money in speculative concerns was condemned in the former Debate, and I should not be in order in covering that field again, but. we are entitled to ask whether the gamble has come off, whether this agreement, entered into in the spacious days of 1919, the days of secrecy in council and profligacy in expenditure, has proved so profitable as was then anticipated, or if it has gone the way of all the other Government speculations and the way of their social reforms, if it has added to the long list of their failures in financial enterprises and in other undertakings. May we, at this stage, when we are confronted with yet another phase, have, at least, the details of this transaction? May we see the agreement, and learn on what class of speculation the British public were invited by the Government to subscribe £50,000? At least, in the event of failure, we might press for the full details of this transaction. I, therefore, venture to draw the attention of the House to the matter, and I ask my hon. Friend in the first place whether the gamble has succeeded, and, if it has not succeeded, what was the arrangement, how has it been conducted, and what is our position to-day? Is this money entirely lost, or are we to recover anything?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Edward Wood): I thank my hon. Friend for having been so courteous as to tell me that he was going to bring this matter before the House. I am afraid he has the advantage of me in having a more picturesque mind and greater power of expression than I can, unfortunately, claim, and these qualities have enabled him to inves1 what I should have thought was a perfectly matter-of-fact business proceeding with a kind of halo of romance which is always welcome in the House at this hour. He asked me two questions, and also made another observation to which I should like to offer a word of reply. His first question was whether this gamble has been successful. He will not expect me to follow or to adopt his language, but I am in a position to tell him and the House what. is the exact financial position as it exists at the present moment, without going into a question which it would be out of order for me to discuss, namely, what are the benefits of the proposal as it was originally made.
My hon. Friend reminded the House that the original agreement was to contribute a maximum sum of £50,000 in a. joint arrangement with the Australian Government for the purpose of exploration for oil in Papua. Of that sum, £35,000 has been paid, spread over the last two years, and this Supplementary Estimate of £15,000 brings up the whole contribution of His Majesty's Government to the sum mentioned in the original agreement. I am not competent to say, and I do not think anybody is yet competent to say, whether or not, as a result of the exploration in Papua, the money is likely to turn out to be well expended. I do not think that the geologists are yet in a position to make a final statement about that. The position of His Majesty's Government in the matter has been that up to date the £50,000 that has been contributed, and the £50,000 contributed by the Australian Government, have not yet made the thing a paying proposition. If it had to be made a paying proposition more money would have to be spent upon it.
In view of the circumstances of the moment, His Majesty's Government came to the conclusion that the wisest course was to redeem their share of the obligation, and leave it at that. They have, accordingly, agreed that the Aus-
tralian Government should take over their interest in the business, and Mr. Hughes has agreed on behalf of the Commonwealth Government to take over our interest for £25,000. That £25,000 can, therefore, be set against the £15,000, fur which I am asking in this Vote. On that basis, as my hon. Friend will see, it represents a net gain to His.Majesty's Government of £10,000. As compared with the whole £50,000, it represents a set-off of 50 per cent. I do not think I have anything more to say, except to make one observation, in which I quite frankly admit that I was unable to follow my hon. Friend. He complained with great force that in a period when there was "secrecy in council and profligacy in expenditure," the secrecy in council led to no agreement ever having been published, and he asked, in forcible terms, that at this late hour the agreement might be laid before the world. I do not know to what he refers, because I hold in my hand, and anybody can hold it in their hand if they ask for it at the Vote Office, a copy of an agreement made between His Majesty's Government, the Australian Government, and the Anglo-Persian Oil Company. The whole thing is signed. It is Command Paper 1286, which was issued this year.

Mr. MOSLEY: Since the last Debate?

Mr. WOOD: Yes. If my hon. Friend will refresh his mind on that he will find that it meets his point.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House cloth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

Lord ROBERT CECIL: The sum which we are asked to vote is £100,000, which I understand is really a bookkeeping account representing the amount or part of the amount of medical stores that are being sent to Russia. I should like to know a little more about the policy of His Majesty's Government in this matter, as this is the first time we have had this Vote in connection with the Russian famine. I should like to know whether the Government adhere to the views on the Russian famine expressed by the Prime Minister on the 16th August. That speech is, no doubt, vividly in the recollection of hon. Members. I was, unfor-
tunately, unable to hear it, but I have read it since, and it is in the most picturesque and striking style of the Prime Minister. He describes in language which must have been very effective, what he calls "the most appalling catastrophe that is taking place in Russia." He pointed out that 35,000,000 people are starving. He read a very striking passage from our representatives out there, giving a picture of what is happening. He went on to say that the matter came before the Paris Conference, and that the immensity of the evil ought to sweep away entirely from one's mind all prejudice as to whether or not the Russian Government was a Bolshevik Government. He said that it ought to appeal only to one emotion, that of pity and human sympathy, and I would add, that of sound economic principle also. He stated that the Supreme Council had decided to set up immediately an international organisation in order to provide relief for Russia. I would draw the attention of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs to the principle which the Prime Minister laid down. He said in the most specific way that here was a terrible catastrophe which was almost unequalled in the history of the world, that it was no use relying on mere private charity, and no use dealing with it in a small way, but that it required international effort. He went on to say:
There have been suggestions of relief from organisations in America, from the Red Cross, and from private benefactors, all valuable, especially those from bodies who propose to send doctors and medical supplies, and any bodies who can help to prevent the children from dying; but I am sorry to say this is such a gigantic catastrophe that it has to be dealt with upon a much bigger scale, and it was the feeling in Paris that there must be a great international effort." —[OFFICIAL. REPORT, 16th August, 1921; col. 1238, Vol. 146.]
I want to ask very specifically whether that is still the view of the Government, and, if so, what is the great international effort which has been made since the 16th August. That is three months ago, three months of the most critical period in the year. They have been months which make the difference between summer and winter, months in which something effective should have been done. What has been done in order to deal with this terrible catastrophe? All we know is that a Commission was appointed, and that they thereupon held
a conference at Paris. They proposed to send a perfectly unworkable commission of inquiry into Russia, and the Russian Government, for once, I think, acted wisely and refused to have anything to do with it. They said it was not a genuine thing, and that it was going to do no real good. Then another conference was held, and that conference decided to have still another conference at Brussels, and at the conference at Brussels a great deal of talk took place, but, so far as I know, nothing effective was done. Unless my information is at fault, the main object of the English delegates appeared to be to throw doubt and suspicion upon Dr. Nanson's organisation. That is not an exaggerated statement of the record of the Government since the 16th August, when the Prime Minister came down to the House and stated in the most solemn way that here was a great catastrophe, in regard to which we were bound to make a great international effort.
All that has been done has been to hold these conferences, and now, at long last, after three months have been wasted, the Government come before the House and propose to send out, not food, but medical supplies. I do not wish to under-estimate the value of medical supplies, but this is a case of starvation, and there are also serious epidemics which have taken place. Medical supplies are very necessary, but it is plain that the root of the matter is starvation. If you are going to deal with it effectively you have got to feed the people or assist them to obtain food. That, I understand, was the policy of the Government on the 16th August. What occurred to prevent that policy being carried out? The Government, it is said, attached great importance to the acknowledgment by the Bolshevik Government of the pre-revolution debts. That raises another question which I should like to put. There have been reports in the paper-I do not pretend to know what are the exact facts—which seem to show that the Bolshevik Government have made, at any rate, some step towards acknowledging the pre-revolution debts. I would like to know, have they really complied with that condition? If so, what new conditions have been invented in order to justify the Government in refusing the assistance which the Prime Minister regarded as effective?
I have two other questions. What is going to be done with these stores? Are they going to be distributed under some special organisation which the Government are going to set up ed hoc? If so, how far have they got with that organisation? Have they got the consent of the Russian Government, or are the stores going to be distributed through Dr. Nansen's organisation, which is functioning at present? In his speech the Prime Minister pointed out that it is difficult to induce the peasants in the part of Russia where there has been an adequate harvest—I understand there has been a considerable surplus in the western parts of Russia, and probably also in S[...]beriaowing to the complete breakdown in the monetary system of Russia, to sell their corn for Russian money, and the Russian Government have no goods which they can exchange for the corn. The Prime Minister pointed that out with great force much more eloquently than I could do, but I want to know whether the Government have considered the possibility, subject to what the Prime Minister said at Question time the other day—I think that they must have done so—of advancing a credit to enable the Russian Government, or Dr. Nansen's organisation, to buy boots, machinery, and an immense number of other things of which the peasants are urgently in need in order to exchange them against corn, and to get corn down to the starving population of the Volga?
I should have thought that there was a great deal to be said for that policy from the purely national point of view. it would enable something to be done—I do not know how much—to create a demand for our own manufactures, and it would tend, to some extent, to set the wheels of commerce, trade and industry going in this country, as well as in Russia. It appears to me to be at least as good a policy as relief works or doles or any thing else. Has anything been done to investigate that and set some fresh policy going? The way in which this question has been dealt with is really one of the worst instances of the vices of the present Government. If in August the Prime Minister had come to the House and said, "Here is a terrible catastrophe. I have had it examined by my skilled advisers and my financial advisers, and we are unable to do anything. We may be able to
send some medical stores later on, but we can do nothing. We are too poor to be able to help,"that would have been intelligible. It would not have raised false hopes. It would have put the thing, I think, on a wholly wrong basis, but still on a sound basis, but the right hon. Gentleman comes down and makes a tremendous speech. He emphasises the fearful nature of the catastrophe and draws the most vivid picture, partly in his own language and partly in the language of those who have examined the situation in Russia, and he says: "Such a thing cannot be dealt with on any tinkering lines. It cannot be dealt with privately. Such a thing requires a great international effort, and we and the French are prepared to consider and set such an effort going," and then nothing effective is done. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] Some other section of opinion got hold of the machinery of the Government, and stopped it. That is an intolerable way of carrying on the affairs of the country. This is only one instance of the vice which affects the whole of the Government administration, which is bringing the country every day nearer to the verge of ruin.

Mr. CLYNES: I can recall the speech which was made by the Prime Minister on the occasion referred to, and I remember that the House of Commons was moved at the time not merely by the eloquence of the Prime Minister, but by the feeling which that eloquence produced as to the terrible calamity which had fallen upon a very large part of Russia. There is no man in this kingdom more fitted for the work of delivering moving human perorations than the Prime Minister, but in his absence we are entitled to say that this is distinctly an instance for the delivery of something more than perorations. It is an instance for the delivery of adequate national relief, of assistance which should stand above any consideration of the money debts incurred by former Russian Governments and carried still as a responsibility by the present Russian Government. I, of course, welcome the comparatively small contribution of the medical and other supplies which are represented in this Vote. But we must do much more or formally withdraw the language of the Prime Minister in order that no further hope should rest upon anything being
done as a result of what virtually was regarded as a pledge by the head of the present Government, as it must be the case, as the Noble Lord has concluded, that following the Prime Minister's pronouncement, which was interpreted as pledging immediate action, influences began to operate to make his language ineffective. If that be so, there must have been one or two causes for influences of that kind being set to work. First, there would be the fact that Russia is being governed by a Soviet Government altogether out of keeping with our own view of what a form of government should be. It may be that some dissemble the expression of this view, but we have heard it and it can be found in certain of the newspapers of the country. If it has not influenced many it has been clearly expressed as part of that political view-point because of which we ought not to extend support to the starving people of Russia. The other reason for lack of effective action, clearly has been the non-recognition of debts contracted during the Tsarist régime and not recognised now by the Soviet Government. I would like to join with the Noble Lord in pressing for some definite statement from the Government as to what exactly is the position on that question. I observe that in a communication dated 28th October to the British Government by the Russian representative Tchitcherin, there is this statement:
Consequently the Russian Government, recognising that many small holders of Russian loan, particularly in France, have a direct interest in the recognition of Tsarist debts, declares itself ready to recognise the obligations on the part of other States and their citizens, with respect to State loans concluded by the Tsarist Government before 1914 under the express reserve that there be made special conditions and facilities which would make the realisation of the promise possible.
That is a statement made with some qualification, and we should be left in no doubt as to the interpretation the Government have given to it, as to the value they attach to it, and as to what effect this Russian assurance may have on our policy in relation to the famine. The International Commission in Brussels on this question of Russian relief made, on 10th October, a pronouncement confirming the conclusion I have put to the House as to the reasons for not assisting in any large degree in the relief of the Russian
people. The pronouncement contains the following:
The Conference therefore necessarily arrives at the conclusion that credits and exportations to Russia are only obtainable on the following conditions:

(1) The Soviet Government must recognise the existing debt and other obligations resulting from engagements taken regularly.
(2) Adequate guarantees must be forthcoming for every credit granted in the future."

I can add little to what the Noble Lord has said on the purely human side of this great question. I believe it is a fact that, although we have had various figures purporting to represent the number of persons afflicted by the ravages of famine, there are between 15,000,000 and 20,000,000 of the. Russian people so afflicted in an area about twice the size of the United Kingdom. I am reminded that the Prime Minister put the figure even higher than that, but taking the lowest estimate that has come from any quarter, the figure is such that we cannot allow any question of debts and financial arrangements to stand in the way of our doing something in the way of relief. If always we had to consider these great human matters from the standpoint of money the world would be the poorer and human nature would nor be as rich in its wish to relieve as usually it is.
We can well feel that some of our own poorer people may be saying, "Charity begins at home." As a matter of fact, this is a greater thing than charity; it is higher, because it is so much more vast than any condition of impoverishment which may exist in this country to-day. My own belief is that our own poor would remain the poorer by an absence of the relief which is urgently and immediately needed in Russia. If that part of Russia remains devastated and becomes totally depopulated, it will mean the delay of that condition of economic and industrial restoration which in turn is bound to have an important effect for the better on the industrial problem in this country. Russia in the main was little prepared, indeed was not prepared at all, to meet such an awful calamity as this. Those who think that the calamity is due to ordinary political incompetence or to an undue degree of experimentation in new forms of State government, are entirely -wrong. My belief is that this devastation
might well have occurred during the old condition of government in Russia. I go further and say that if any such famine as this had afflicted Russia from natured causes during the Tsarist régime, this Government and the other Governments of Europe would have come more fully and readily to Russia's help.
We ought, therefore, to rid ourselves of this suspicion of allowing political considerations to govern our human rules of action in a matter of such appalling trouble as this must be. The Prime Minister drew attention, not only to the inadequacy, but, one might almost say, to the futility of attempting the necessary degree of relief by the organised effort of private charity. We cannot take up a newspaper to-day without seeing the most harrowing advertisements of the conditions of starvation in Russia, and moving appeals to whatever private resources we may have. As the Prime Minister said, this is a matter not merely for action of that kind, valuable as it is. It would be futile and ineffective for its purpose unless it were supplemented by help on the greater scale which alone a Government can afford. I hope we shall not be led to think of the Russian people merely in the terms of the private appeals so frequently made.
Finally, may I quote a statement recently made by Doctor Nansen, which shows the bearing of the relief on our future prosperity? He said on 6th October:
If Russia is saved from starvation the unemployment problem throughout the world will be solved. Food is wasting in the granaries of the earth while millions of men, women, and children in Russia are dying for want of food.
I do not go so far as to say that if this part of Russia were re-established in conditions of comparative comfort, that, would solve the unemployment problem throughout the world. Dr. Nansen's statement is perhaps an excessive statement, but coming from such a source it shows how pewerful is the pressure behind any man who has given up his life to the relief of the sufferers and how anxious he is to make the most moving appeals he possibly can make for universal, and particularly for Government, assistance. Though it may not completely cure our unemployment problem, I am certain that that problem can be made worse by withholding the relief. I trust,
therefore, that those who, in the absence of the Prime Minister, speak to-night for the Government will be able to give us an assurance that what the Prime Minister led us to hope and believe would be done is about to be done, and that it will soon be undertaken.

Mr. HOPKINSON: The right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down failed to notice one very great distinction between the Russia of the present day and all other nations of the world, including the Russia of the Tsarist régime. He said if such a calamity had happened to Russia under the old Tsarist régime then the Government of this country would have gone to the assistance of the Tsarist Government. That is very possibly true, but what the right hon. Gentleman has failed to observe is this, that so long as there is a Communistic régime in Russia it is utterly useless giving assistance to those who are starving. Starvation of the population under that régime is inevitable, and it is not the least use saving these unfortunate people for a few months now, in order that they may starve again next year. No matter what relief you give, you cannot save a Communistic country from starvation, because the whole basis of Communism is that you should eat up capital until there is no capital left. Consider what has actually happened to the harvests of the last few years in Russia. The first harvest under the present régime—according to accounts from the neighbourhood of Moscow—showed that the amount sown was not seriously less than had been sown in previous years before Communism had been introduced. It was less, but not very seriously less. What happened to that harvest? The Prime Minister spoke about bursting corn bins, but it apparently never even reached the corn bins. What happened was this. The surplus which was not depleted by their own consumption and by the seeding, was taken from the peasants for the use of the towns and they were paid in paper roubles. Paper roubles have this remarkable quality, that they are worth very decidedly less than the paper on which they are printed, because if the paper were plain and not printed upon, it could be used for writing letters and other purposes, but having had roubles printed upon it, it is no longer of any use whatever, except for papering the walls of the cottages. The
peasants having had this experience of seeing their hard work exchanged for valueless paper, naturally the next hravest was shorter even than the first one had been. In order that they should not have their corn taken away from them for nothing but worthless paper, they began to conceal corn in the villages throughout Russia. Then the Soviet Government proceeded to unearth these caches of corn throughout Russia, and unearthed them with a considerable degree of violence and a considerable amount of suffering to the unfortunate peasants who had been guilty of concealing their corn, with the result that they sowed shorter next year. Then on top of the short sowing there came a long drought, with the natural result that, as the right hon. Gentleman says, from 20,000,000 to 30,000,000 people are now starving. That process is inevitable in any country where there is no currency and no capital. There is no getting round that. The Noble Lord the Member for Hitchin (Lord R. Cecil) told us that Dr. Nansen had estimated the number of people starving to be somewhere in the neighbourhood of 20,000,000, or more, and that he also estimated that a sum of between £5,000,000 and £10,000,000 subscribed by this Government and the other Governments of the world would save the situation.

Lord R. CECIL: No; I said that was all he was asking for, and that if he got it he could do a great deal with it. May I also point out to the hon. Member, as regards seed corn, that in parts of Russia the harvest was quite good, and about half the total quantity was available in Western Russia? Dr. Nansen thought that with the amount mentioned he could do a great deal to tide over the immediate danger.

Mr. HOPKINSON: I am within the recollection of the House, and surely that is what I suggested. The Noble Lord said that with £5,000,000 to 10,000,000 Dr. Nansen said he could tide over the immediate danger. Was not the immediate danger that 20,000,000 or more people would starve? Did not Dr. Nansen say that by means of this sum he would be able to save the lives of from 20,000,000 to 25,000,000 people, which is a very cheap rate at which to save life, being anywhere from 5s. to 10s. a head? Supposing that £5,000,000 to £10,000,000 subscribed by the nations of
the world were capable of saving these people from starvation, what is to prevent the Soviet Government finding that sum? I understand they are keeping mobilised and in the field an army of between 500,000 and 1,000,000 men. It seems to me if they turned down one or two divisions of that great army they would have the funds available to save the lives of these millions of people, if the contention we have heard is true. Why should they come to us, as Dr. Nansen is doing, and say, "You hard-hearted, callous, indifferent nations of the world, here are 25,000,000 of our subjects starving, and because you will not subscribe £5,000,000 they have to starve"? It is perfectly ludicrous for the Soviet Government to take up that position when they are maintaining this force in the field, and when such industries as they possess are very largely engaged upon furnishing munitions for this army. It is an outrageous piece of humbug to make such a request to the world at large. The Noble Lord cannot have been thinking when he suggested that we should adopt that idea. Dr. Nansen obviously, if he is reported aright, is talking rank nonsense when he says that 5s. to 10s. a head is going to save these people during the winter and give them seed corn for the next harvest. The Noble Lord says that the harvest in other parts is good. While perhaps the harvest per acre may be good, what knowledge has he as to what amount of acreage has been sown? The harvest might be double the average per acre, and yet the amount sown might have been, as it was in parts of Russia nearly three years ago, only 10 per cent. to 15 per cent. of the normal. Again even presupposing that there is a large harvest in parts of Russia, what is the use of it? How is it to be got to Samara and the Volga? There is a complete breakdown in the railway system which was absolutely inevitable, just as the economic breakdown was inevitable. Does the Noble Lord suggest that the transport conditions in Russia are such that enormous quantities of corn can be hurried to the starving population?

Lord R. CECIL: I think it would have been far easier if it had been done a few months ago when you had the waterways.

Mr. HOPKINSON: The Noble Lord says it would have been better if it had been
attempted months ago. [An HON. MEMBER: "Before the harvest."] Why, three months ago these conditions had not arisen, and what is the use of saying that now? Do let us look at this thing sensibly. Here we have up to 30,000,000 of people on the verge of starvation and scores of thousands of them actually starving day by day, and you have a broken down transport system. When that transport system was at its very best it was exceedingly inferior. The railways were in the main strategic railways, with secondary railways for taking the products of the country to the ports for export. The railway system of Russia is not designed for taking large amounts of corn at a very high speed from the Ukraine to these provinces.

Mr. JONES: Capitalism writ large.

Mr. HOPKINSON: Those are the conditions. Has the Noble Lord taken the trouble to calculate on a piece of paper exactly what the feeding of this population means in rolling stock, and, having calculated that, what it means in locomotives and what it means in the actual permanent way which is necessary to transport millions and millions of tons in a few days right across Russia? It is ludicrous to come down to this House and say that if, before this condition had arisen, the Government had taken steps, it would have been all right. The Noble Lord and his supporters would have been the first to say, "Let us not interfere with the internal affairs of the Russian Government. Let us not tell the Soviet Government they are making a gross economic mistake, and that if they go on like this their population will starve." I feel somewhat angry, because if the Noble Lord had taken the trouble to think three years ago he would have seen the present condition of Russia to have been absolutely inevitable. I have felt it my duty to point out, month by month, during these three years, what was going to be the next step in Russia, and I would suggest that His Majesty's Foreign Office and the other Foreign Offices concerned know perfectly well what is going to be the next step in Russia, and that they are therefore extremely cautious about taking these steps which the Noble Lord suggests. The next step in Russia is perfectly obvious. It is feudalism of the most tyrannous kind—the feudalism of foreign capitalists, foreign barons, to
whom the Russian Government will be handing over concessions involving, not only natural products and things of that sort, but the actual population of the district. Circumstances are constituting as fast as they can the feudal system in its worst form in Russia. That is not to be attributed to Lenin, but to the natural forces which must inevitably produce that feudalism, and which the Noble Lord himself might have anticipated three years ago.

Lord R. CECIL: If I had anticipated it, what could I have done?

Mr. HOPKINSON: If he had anticipated it, he would not have made the speech which he has made to-day.

Lord R. CECIL: I should have made exactly the same speech, because I have a heart, thank God.

Mr. HOPKINSON: I know very well that there is nobody in this House, except the occupants of those benches opposite, who has got a heart at all, but I said the other night, and I repeat it now, that I am sick of these stale bleeding hearts. They begin to stink in our nostrils.

Captain O'GRADY: That is why you gave up your pipe.

Mr. HOPKINSON: I should like to point out that this generosity with other people's money is not really a virtue. However, I shall be out of order in pursuing this subject—

Mr. SPEAKER: As I was going to remark.

Mr. HOPKINSON: Yes, Sir. Our Government is treating this subject from the point of view of common sense, and so are the other Foreign Offices concerned, and not from the point of view of absurd sentiment. They know very well that it is simply throwing millions into a bottomless pit to send them into Russia at the present time, and their insistence upon recognition of debt was simply an insistence upon a civilised Government of some sort in Russia before they came to its assistance. There is not the least doubt in the world that if these millions were subscribed now, it would not save perhaps more than one or two from starvation. It is impossible to save these unfortunate people. The trouble has come upon them to a large extent through
their own folly, but let us, at any rate, treat this subject from the point of view of common sense and not get into these extraordinary sentimental rages which the Noble Lord the Member for Hitchin has indulged in.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: The hon. 'Member for Mossley (Mr. A. Hopkinson) sometimes carries his love for paradox too far. it is all very well to treat the House as solely a sounding board for rather farfetched economic theories, but, if he will forgive me saying so, that is really better done in the pages of the "Fortnightly" or some other review, rather than in the House of Commons, where he can be replied to on the spot. The hon. Gentleman has treated us to a perfect philosophic treatise on how the world must get along without anybody helping anybody else. If anybody helps anybody else, it saps independence, upsets economic laws, and in the end is very bad for the person who is helped. Fortunately, that has not been the policy of England in the past, nor of decent peoples in other countries. When there was a shortage in the trade in which the hon. Member is concerned, the Lancashire cotton trade—

Mr. A. HOPKINSON: I am not concerned in that trade.

Mr. J. JONES: He represents no trade except smoking.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: When there was a shortage in Lancashire during the Civil War in America, the Americans subscribed large sums to relieve the distress in Lancashire. They might, if they had followed the hon. Member's advice, have sent good advice to Lancashire to change from the cotton business into some other business. No doubt it would have been perfectly accurate, but it would not have been helpful, nor would it have helped to bring together the two branches of the Anglo-Saxon race.

Mr. GOULD: Where is the parallel with Russia?

Colonel WEDGWOOD: They were both in urgent need. The hon. Member for Mossley knows very well that there are occasionally famines in India, and we put our hands into our pockets then, but if we followed his advice we should turn up the pages of Malthus and prove that the population regulated itself. That is all very well, but, fortunately,
we do not follow that line, and as long as we remain with any semblance of Christianity in this country, we shall decline to follow that line. The hon. Member says it is entirely the fault of Marxian doctrines, carried on by Lenin, that this crisis has arrived in Russia. The point I would like to make is, that Lenin himself has dropped the Marxian doctrines.

Mr. J. JONES: No, he has not.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: He has dropped them, so far as industry is concerned, now; but he dropped the Marxian doctrines, so far as the country districts were concerned, as soon as he got his Revolution in November, 1917. There has never been the slightest sign of Marxianism about the peasantry of Russia, and all that happened in the Russian Revolution, so far as the peasants were concerned, was that the peasants got the land instead of the landlords having the land. Marxianism was never applied to them, because the peasants would not look at it. The result in Russia, so far from being the result of Marxianism, might be said to be the result of four or five years of bitter war, when the country has been overrun from one end to the other, very largely by expeditions financed, supported, and cheered on by the hon. Member for Mossley. He says the transport system has broken down.

Mr. HOPKINSON: The Noble Lord the Member for Hitchin (Lord R. Cecil) says it has not broken down.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I will deal with whether it has broken down or not presently. The hon. Member says the transport system has broken down. Is it any wonder, when Russia has been boycotted and cut off from all civilised countries for the last six or seven years? He says the Russians are quite incapable of organising any relief to the famine areas. Is it wonderful, after they have been killed off as they have been during the last seven years?

Mr. GOULD: By whom?

Mr. J. JONES: By Tsarism.

Mr. SPEAKER: I must ask the hon. Member for Silvertown (Mr. J. Jones) and the hon. Member for Central Cardiff (Mr. Gould) not to interrupt.

Mr. GOULD: I am not taking this matter as a joke.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: No, it has become more than a joke, for the hon. Member has interrupted every alternate sentence not only during my speech, but during the preceding speeches. These things are not the result, as the hon. Member would have us believe, solely of Marxian Government in Russia, but even were they the result of Marxian Government in Russia, I would still say that people in this country are not entitled to allow 35,000,000 or even 20,000,000 or 10,000,000 people to starve, to die slowly of hunger, so long as there is a penny in the pockets of the English people or a pound of food in the country. Whether they are Russians, or whether they are English makes no profound difference to a Christian people, and if even by breaking economic laws we can do something to save these people from starving, I am quite confident, whether we are economically sound or not, we are morally and religiously right.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Cecil Harmsworth): I little thought, when I found it my duty to introduce this very unobtrusive Vote, that it would have led to so heated a discussion. I may, perhaps, remind those Members of the House who are not familiar with the Vote that it is, as my Noble Friend the Member for Hitchin (Lord E. Cecil) has said, something in the nature of a book-keeping arrangement. There are, or were, in the possession of the Disposal Board, some large quantities of medical stores, clothing and some amount of tinned meat and other foodstuffs. Of this the Government have decided to allocate, for purposes of relief in Russia, an amount that at pre-War prices was worth £100,000, and at the present values, perhaps, £250,000, and in answer to the question of my Noble Friend, I may say that those stores are to be handed, or have already been handed, to the British Red Cross Society, to be allocated as they please, and under no conditions whatever. I understand that the Red Cross Society is establishing a base at Riga and another at Novorossisk for the purpose of the distribution of these stores. It may have been thought, perhaps, that there was no necessity to come to the House of Commons for a Supplementary Estimate,
having regard to the fact that the House of Commons has already granted the cost of these stores, and, indeed, of course the money had already been expended; but it was felt to be constitutional, and in accordance with financial propriety, that the sanction of the House should be obtained for any grant, for however good a purpose, made by His Majesty's Government.
9.0 P.M.
My Noble Friend has enlarged on a much greater topic than this. I am only dealing for the moment with this amount of stores, very necessary, we are told, and perhaps the most useful that we could contribute, but obviously by no means an adequate provision for the relief of any proportion of the large number of people suffering from famine in Russia at the present time. I venture to think that, having regard to the present state of our own resources, this is by no means an insignificant contribution, and I trust that the example, modest as it is, set by our Government, may be followed by other Governments, many of them much better situated in regard to finances and resources than we are ourselves at this moment. My Noble Friend referred to the glowing speech which the Prime Minister made on the 16th August, and he asked whether the policy of His Majesty's Government has been changed. It is not for me to amplify and extend any utterance made from this Bench by the Prime Minister, but I at least fail to observe in what respect the policy of His Majesty's Government has changed. My Noble Friend referred only incidentally to the latter part of the Prime Minister's speech on that occasion. It is true that the Prime Minister drew, as perhaps he alone can draw, in appropriately sombre colours the state of Russia at this moment, and he expressed a feeling shared, I am sure, by every Member of this House, and not least by my hon. Friend sitting below the Gangway, of intense sympathy with those who are suffering from this awful calamity in Russia. But the Prime Minister went on to point cut—and here I do not profess to produce his exact Ian gunge—that whatever you might do by way of private charity, or even State charity, in Russia, you were by no means going to the root of the question, and he insisted, in a passage with which I will venture to trouble the House, that in
order that this terrible problem might adequately be met, it was necessary for the Russian Government to re-establish itself in the confidence of the world. He said:
If the Soviet Government want to create confidence, if they want to get the trading community to come in to assist them at this juncture, they must say they will recognise all these obligations.
Not merely this or that obligation, not merely the pre-War obligations of the Tsarist Government, but others as well.
I hope it will be believed that I do not want to take advantage of this dire calamity, for the purpose of obtaining acceptance of this principle, but I know this is the best way of dealing with the matter. I have gone into it very carefully and I have found that this stood in the way. They themselves admit that you must get the peasants to part with their corn.
This is not only an external question, but it is a domestic Russian question, and that is sometimes forgotten.
They themselves admit that there is only one way of doing so, that is by giving goods. I say there is only one way of getting the goods there, and that is by restoring that confidence among the trading community, that will make the trading community feel, that they can send their goods there without any danger of their obligations being confiscated in the future."—OFFICIAL REPORT: 16th August, 1921; cols. 1241 and 1242; Vol. 146.]
That, surely, does go to the root of the question. I am not myself going this evening, and would not do so even if it were in order, to traverse the principles of Communist Government in Russia. My hon. Friend the Member for Mossley (Mr. A. Hopkinson) is far more competent to do that than I am, but you must have in the relations between nations, at all events, something like the business conventions that you require between individuals. My experience of life is this, that where a man repudiates his debts, he soon fails to secure credit from other people. My Noble Friend asked me how far these discussions have proceeded in the matter of the acknowledgment of their debts by the Soviet Government. I have not the documents before me, but I think they have been published in the Press, and, if my memory serve me right, the Soviet Government have only undertaken to recognise their national debts up to the period of 1914. Further correspondence is ensuing on that subject, but I think we should all recognise, as a business assembly, that the Russian Govern-
ment must go very much beyond that before they can establish themselves in the confidence of the business community of the world. Until they do that, and up to the time that they did that, they might possibly receive State and private aid, but they could not hope to cope in any degree with so vast a calamity as that which confronts them. My right hon. Friend the Member for Platting (Mr. Clynes) said that this was an instance requiring adequate national relief. If I may say so very respectfully, I wish he would somewhat develop that point. What would he regard as adequate national relief? As my hon. Friend the Member for Mossley said, if you are going on anything like charitable lines—and I myself would be far from deprecating any means, seeing the need is instant—if you are going to proceed on those lines, how much money will it take to provide anything like adequate sustenance for so vast a population for the next few months?

Colonel WEDGWOOD: You would not save them all.

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I wish that every one of them could be saved, but how can that be done by private charity? How otherwise can it be done? How otherwise—to return to the old point—can it be done than by bringing the Soviet Government, whatever political principles they choose to profess, into such a state where they can trade and do business with the outer world? I am informed that it is not only a question of the failure of the harvest in this particular district, great as that has been. It is not only the breakdown and inadequacy of the railway and other transport in Russia; the difficulty is even greater. I am told that there is a complete breakdown in all the machinery of business in Russia itself, that all those little means by which produce is brought to market have been destroyed, because the people have been led to think that all these processes can be, and should be, adequately conducted by Government agency, and Government agency has been no more successful in matters of that kind in Russia than it has been with us in the immediate past. [HON. MEMBERS: "It won the War."] That is what I am told, and that that is perhaps even the largest factor—the breakdown of all kinds of means of com-
munication in this part of Russia—as it is in others where they are free from famine. This, I say, is a modest contribution, but it is a definite and concrete contribution to the relief in Russia. What the Government might under other conditions contemplate, I do not know.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Will the hon. Gentleman explain why there has been a change in the policy of the Government?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I thought I had elaborately explained and tried to make it clear that there has been no change of policy.

Mr. J. JONES: You never had any policy, so you could not change it!

Lord R. CECIL: Does the hon. Gentleman mean to say that the speech of the Prime Minister on 16th August meant that all the Government was going to do was to vote these surplus stores worth £100,000?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: No, Sir. I was stating the position, and explaining the conditions under which, if the Government are so disposed, further and larger aid might be rendered. I have only now to submit this Vote, and I trust the House will give it to me without further delay.

Mr. T. SHAW: If I might turn this discussion round, I would commence by pointing out what the Prime Minister said on this subject. 30,000,000 or 35,000,000 of people on the verge of starvation, dragging across huge spaces of territory and possibly bringing disease into Europe, making it the birthground of pestilence and disease. In that paraphrase I think I am correctly representing the statement of the Prime Minister. I want to suggest that 9 Englishmen out of every 10 seeing starvation would relieve it and then discuss the politics of the starving person or persons afterwards. I do not believe that the discussion in this House represents the heart of this nation. I do not believe that the people outside this House would for a moment consider first of all the politics of Russia, but I believe the true heart of the people would say, "First help if possible, and then afterwards discuss, argue and fight." It is in my belief in that policy that I am going to say a few words on the inadequacy of the Vote before us.
I am sorry the Prime Minister's magnificent effort was spoiled—in my opinion, at any rate—by introducing into its high ethical tone the political side, and owing to the necessity and starvation of the people, making a political bargain. Let us look at what is taking place. Russia lost more millions of men during the War than any other country. It was the collapse following on its huge effort in the War, and being unable economically to carry on the war, and the various losses, that led to economic unsafety, and that gave the Bolsheviks their opportunity in Russia. How did the Allied Governments face the situation after the Bolsheviks had seized power? Instead of letting the people of Russia know that the Allied Governments were their friends, every effort was taken to make the Russians feel that the Allies intended to inflict upon them a Government from outside. Denikin, Koltchak, and others who were financed by—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. James Hope): That is not in Order on this Vote.

Mr. SHAW: This discussion has ranged over a very wide field, and I thought I should be justified in pointing out what has led to this system of government which is being used as an excuse for not helping to alleviate the starvation now existing in Russia. We are told that Russia is now keeping up huge armies. Possibly there is reason for that, and that is justified by what I have just stated. It is a sound business proposition to go to the help of these people on the Volga. They are not the Communists of Russia at all, because the Communists reside mostly in Petrograd, Moscow, and other Russian cities and towns. These people are not looked upon by the Soviet authorities as Communists.
What is the position of affairs in Russia and in the East of Europe generally? There is no Soviet, but certainly there is disease and death, and some kindly help to the people on the Volga might make the whole of the East of Europe more secure, and might bring friendship between the people. It would not be simply a humane policy, but it would be a sound business policy to help these people in every possible way. Let us alleviate the sufferings of these people who, whatever may be the sins of the Soviet
Government, have nothing to do with those sins. If I may make another appeal, let me say that it is possible to help these people by Government assistance—I do not mean only the British Government but all the Governments represented by the League of Nations. It is only possible by assistance of that kind to give effective help to these poor people on the Volga.
Supposing help is not given to them, shall we escape by these people dying? The probability is that these people will overflow into Poland, and we shall have typhus ravaging the whole of the East of Europe, and probably spreading to this country, and there will be a condition of things which will almost decimate the population of the East of Europe. That was pointed out in a speech by the Prime Minister, and no arguing about the Soviet Government will take anything away from the danger and the blackness of the picture. No amount of argument about the Soviet Government will absolve us from blame if we deny help to these people. We cannot make these poor people responsible for the sins of Lenin and Trotsky. I appeal to hon. Members not to consider these Votes purely from the financial point of view. Kindness of heart and effective help are recognised by all people in the world, whether they are Russian or belong to other nations. The man or woman who sees to starving being and hurries to its assistance will find a kindly place in the heart of the being who is helped, however villainous that being might have been before.
What applies to an individual, applies to a nation. It is because I believe that the nations alone, through their Governments, can render assistance in this human catastrophe, because I feel that all arguments about the Soviet Government are wide of the mark when dealing with the population of the Volga, because I believe that only effective Government assistance can be given through a body like the League of Nations, which is the only body that can deal with this catastrophe in an adequate way, that I make this appeal. If something be not done disease will become rampant in Europe, and for these reasons I ask the Government to consider whether £100,000 worth of medical stores, which have been left, on their hands, is a sufficient contribution in the name of humanity from a nation which is proud of
its history as being amongst the most humane of the nations of the world. I appeal once more to the House to forget altogether the Soviet form of government, and to think only for the moment of the huge calamity that is overtaking between 25,000,000 and 35,000,000 people, who are guiltless in a political sense, but who are certainly starving. I hope the Government will use every influence with our allies to come to the assistance of these people, believing that he who helps quickly helps twice, and believing also that kindness of heart will be recognised. It is only by this treatment that we can ever hope to bring Europe back to the state to which it ought to be brought if our races are to be prosperous in the future.

Sir J. D. REES: The other day I was accused by the hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. W. Thorne) of having received an university education. I had no opportunity of refuting this calumny at the moment, but the opportunity has now arrived. I may say that during the time of which he speaks, when I should have been at Oxford, I was already a wage slave in India. But though I never had an university education, I can well remember a magnificent chorus in a splendid play which begins with three words, [...] which says there is nothing in the world so wonderful as man. If man includes Members and Members include Labour Members, then I agree that there is nothing so wonderful as a man and a Member and a Labour Member of Parliament.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: No doubt the hon. Member's remarks are very interesting as reminiscences of his youth, but I do not see what they have got to do with this Vote.

Sir J. D. REES: Then I will come at once to the speech of the hon. Member opposite, which I confess amazes me, and it was that speech which led to the introductory remarks I made. The hon. Member made a speech, the substance of which was that the taxpayers of this country should feed 35,000,000 Russians on the Volga. If he did not mean that money should be given to them, I ask him what did he mean?

Mr. SHAW: I suggested that our Government, together with other Govern-
ments belonging to the League of Nations, should take immediate steps to help so far as help was possible.

Sir J. D. REES: My hon. Friend, like many other people, takes shelter behind the very inadequate cover of the League of Nations. I never saw a poorer cover for so many refugees in all my life. He says that 35,000,000 people on the Volga are on the verge of starvation and asks who, seeing a poor woman with a hungry baby, would not succour that infant? The difficulty is that the baby is too big. It is quite impossible for the British taxpayer to succour this baby. The hon. Member made a speech which, if I may respectfully say so, did more credit to his heart than to his, head. Surely he must be aware that the pockets of the people of this country are empty? That is the one outstanding fact. If he is not prepared to tax the people further in order to feel these 35,000,000—a number which is getting on for the population of the United Kingdom—what is the use of all this empty sympathy with the people of Russia? It would be kinder if, like myself, he recognised facts rather than indulged in empty sympathy. If he is not prepared to tax the people of this country to feed a population approaching in numbers their own, his speech has no meaning whatsoever. Although it may be useful for consumption in certain quarters, it is not really worthy of consideration in the House of Commons.
The hon. Member said we were to pay no attention to the politics of Russia. I heartily agree with him. I remember, before the War, hon. Gentlemen on those benches considered anything connected with Russia, from the Emperor downwards, as unworthy of the consideration of any British person, from the Sovereign downwards. Can it be—I really am in great doubt—that this sympathy with the Russians is begotten of sympathy with the Soviet Government, because there was none of this sympathy when they were under the Emperors and autocrats. Never do I remember it, during the 16 years I have been in this House. Now behold how it has quickened since they have left a benevolent autocracy for the grinding and bloody tyranny of the Soviet. Now there is all this sympathy. It may be empty words; Heaven knows it is; but it is very loud, very expressive, very insistent and frequently repeated. My
hon. Friend spoke of the services of the Russians during the War. They were great, indeed, but what has that to do with this question? We did not feed the Russian Army at that time. He said that there were no communists on the Volga. There I totally differ from him. Many of the flourishing communities there were honeycombed with communism, and many of those which were not flourishing were ready to join in any destruction and plunder of the property of those which had flourished on that famous river. The hon. Member referred to typhus in Poland. He said, if we did not feed the 35,000,000 in Russia—I wonder if he realises what that means; I know something about feeding multitudes; I have been in a famine and I know something of the cost, even when they can be fed for 6d. a day on bananas; and beef is far more expensive than bananas. The £5,000,000 to which he has, with weary reiteration, referred, is an absolute trifle. £5,000,000 would disappear in five days. It would not disappear into the mouths of the suffering 35,000,000, but would go further to strengthen the supporters—who, as the hon. Gentleman said, really do reside in Petrograd and Moscow—of Lenin and Trotsky. That is where the £5,000,000 from the pockets of the already taxation-oppressed people of this country would go. None of those 35,000,000 of people would profit at all. Even if you could get this £5,000,000 worth of food up and down the Volga—which, by the way, would just now be frozen, and along which no ships could go, and which com- pares in length with the Nile and in breadth with the St. Lawrence and the Mississippi—which you cannot do, it would not make the slightest difference to the suffering millions of Russia, but you would have abstracted some more millions, which could ill be spared, from the already empty pockets of the people of these islands.
My hon. Friend says, "Just think of the result, if you do not feed the 35,000,000, you will have typhus in Poland." Why, we have had it. I have stood here and protested against the League of Nations paying out of our pockets for preventing typhus in Poland. As if anything we could do here would prevent typhus in Poland. We should be spending the money wrung from the industrious, who are not at present by any means the whole of the population, for adding strength
to the supporters of Lenin and Trotsky and not preventing typhus in Poland. These are the new Imperialists. I can remember that I was jeered at and could hardly speak in this House because I was regarded as a Liberal Imperialist. What is the difference? The hon. Member is an Imperialist without being a Liberal, but he is exceedingly liberal with the taxpayers' money and, in that sense, he is a Liberal Imperialist.
I did not hear the speech of the Noble Lord the Member for Hitchin (Lord R. Cecil), but I know it as well as if I had heard it. I have heard that speech, and I have been interested in it every time have heard it. Unfortunately I arrived a minute or two late on this occasion, but I will venture to address myself for one minute to answering it, although I did not hear it, and I will undertake that from my answer no hon. Member will realise that I did not hear it. The Noble Lord, with whose alliances I am not concerned, but whose words perhaps I am competent to criticise, wants £5,000,000. It is only £5,000,000, and only five of those millions which have mounted up to 8,000 and which will be a burden upon the whole of this generation and upon succeeding generations for a long time to come. He wants £5,000,000 to be spent in feeding the people in Russia. Is there in any quarter of the House an hon. Member who believes, if it comes down to anything like hard facts, and if we leave the region of airy, sympathetic imagination, that the people of this country, the overburdened taxpayers, can find £5,000,000 a year, or that it will be of the slightest use? I have seen, long, long ago I admit—

Mr. SHAW: Are you aware that we spent over £100,000,000 in attacking Russia?

Sir J. D. REES: What has that got to do with this? If we spent £100,000,000 in attacking Russia, surely we should be still more foolish if we spent more millions in feeding her. Why the hon. Gentleman suggests that there is any merit in throwing good money after bad, a proverbially foolish process, I cannot for the life of me understand. I will ask him to be serious for a moment. Has he any idea of what feeding people by the million means? I am quite sure he has absolutely none. Has he any idea of the area which you have to feed in Russia? Does he know that the 35,000,000 are
spread over something like the area of Europe, that there is only a river as a means of communication which is frozen now and will be frozen for months, that it has only one railway running down it, and that that will be out of gear, for no Bolshevik ever had a railway running. Does he or does he not realise these facts? If he does not, I for one strongly object, as a man who knows something about Russia and hopes to see the Russian people relieved from tyranny and starvation, I say I most strongly object to mere vain sympathy being laid before the House of Commons as if there were any substance in that creed and as if the hon. Gentleman had really considered anything connected with the cost of that to which he has referred. I am perfectly well aware that if it be a question of social reform or education, or anything coming under those comprehensive heads, it is already an axiom with him and his friends that money does not matter, but it is something new to learn that that doctrine can be extended to the feeding of the starving and suffering peoples of Europe. Is this little island going to take the world upon its back? Is not the taxpayer already sufficiently bled? I heard the hon. Member's speech with amazement. I am astonished too at the action of the Noble Lord the Member for Hitchin (Lord R. Cecil). I know what he said. My last word is this. If we can help the Russians we should, but we have to help our own people first, and we have no money to waste upon this vain Imperialism.

Mr. J. JONES: We have listened to a speech from an hon. Member of this House that might well have been delivered from the stage of the Palladium. In so far as we are concerned, we have just been reminded of the fact that we are a little country by one of the greatest Imperialists in this House, by one whom I have heard say here that we are the greatest Empire that the world has ever seen. Yes, and at the present moment we are boasting of the fact that all the Empires that went before are practically small dip candles as against the electric light of modern civilisation as exemplified by the hon. Member for East Nottingham (Sir J. D. Rees). The object of this Vote is to provide assistance for the people of Russia in the time of their great extremity. I am not going to argue
about the merits of the Government of Russia. Every people deserves the kind of Government it gets, and particularly so does our country. It is not the fault of the Government of this country that we are not suffering famine as the people of Russia are face to face with famine now. I have yet to learn from those who expect to be great statesmen, and particularly from those qualifying to be future occupants of the Front Government Bench, that we are going to look upon our responsibilities merely as matters of particular forms of government. We have had famines in India before to-day, and the hon. Member for East Nottingham has taken his part in trying to meet the situation arising out of those famines. He did not then argue whether the people who were going to receive relief were Moslems or Mohammedans.

Sir J. D. REES: They are our subjects.

Mr. JONES: Our subjects but not our objects. They are just as much opposed to us from an intellectual point of view as the Bolsheviks may be at the present moment. They have never accepted our particular conception of civilisation. Whatever may be said about the people of Russia as a whole we belong to that school of thought in Europe which does not recognise the Bolshevik Government in Russia as being Marxian, as is so often put forward by the other side. Marx never preached that you could strike 12 o'clock at 11, and we here do not accept the philosophy that it is possible to introduce a completely Communist system of Government in the midst of difficult economic circumstances not prepared for such an evolution. In so far as we are concerned the gibes thrown at us in this House to-night do not meet the situation at all. We are not arguing as to the rights and wrongs of Communism, or as to whether Lenin and Trotsky are in direct connection with the hon. Member for East Nottingham. What we do say is that we have some responsibility regarding the position of Russia. Russia saved us in the hour of our greatest danger. If it had not been for what was called the Russian steam roller in the early days of the War, we should not have had the time necessary to prepare for our great onslaught on the Western Front, and it was the sacrifice of millions of Russian lives that gave us time to prepare for that
action which later on we did take. We owe a debt to the Russian people because of that.
I am against the Lenin-Trotsky idea of government. I do not believe in dictatorship, either in tall hats or in corduroys. We on these benches believe in democracy, in the free right of the people to express the kind of government they want. Therefore we have opposed in this country the idea which some people are preparing to promulgate even in England of the right of a small minority by force to dictate the conditions, political and social, of the general body of the community. Because we believe that, and because we recognise the services that Russia rendered in the struggle through which we have gone, we say we ought not to quibble now about helping Bolshevism, or any other form of political or economic government, but that we should come to the rescue of our common humanity, and if we do so we are helping to revive the ancient customs of Europe. Why have these gentlemen in Russia been compelled to recognise economic circumstances? Because they know that the wheels of trade cannot be made to move again until they are prepared to recognise economic facts. Cannot we help them in that course? Should we not be prepared to assist them to bring about the time when normal relationships can be arrived at in Europe? If we are to adopt the policy advocated by the hon. Member for East Nottingham, of saying that we are not going to help at all, that instead of helping Russia we are going to help ourselves, then I say that we on these benches are of opinion that by helping Russia we are helping ourselves. Every penny spent in helping Russia to resume its normal relations and in helping to save the people from starvation will be helping to bring about the time when normal trade relations can again exist between the various countries of Europe. What are we faced with now? The hon. Member for East Nottingham says it does not matter if pestilence breaks out in Poland. I venture to suggest that it would matter if scarlet fever broke out in Nottingham, and yet Nottingham is not so far away from Warsaw in the matter of disease.

Sir J. D. REES: May I ask my hon. Friend, as a matter of information, to what he refers?

Mr. JONES: I am only referring to the exportation of goods containing the possibilities of disease. The hon. Gentleman knows more about these matters than I do, which accounts for the fact that he asks so many questions. We are not speaking on this matter from the standpoint of the economic or political conceptions of Lenin and Trotsky; we are speaking on the broad issue. Famine has broken out in Europe, and a necessary consequence of famine is pestilence and death. We are asking that the nations of Europe who are best able to help shall give assistance to a great country that has done its bit in the Great War. Whatever may be the faults of the Government in Russia, the people are not responsible. The great masses of the people of Russia have not been consulted as to the form of Government there. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] I am glad to have so much agreement, and, if you agree with me, I hope you will help us in the application we are now making. The great mass of the people of Russia have never had an opportunity of deciding their form of government, and, that being so, surely they are entitled to your sympathy in their hour of danger, when they are being practically decimated in large sections of the country. We ask for that assistance, and we ask that no question of politics shall enter into it. When a man asks us for assistance we do not ask him what his religion is or what are his politics; we simply try to the best of our ability to meet the immediate situation as it appears to us. Therefore, we hope that the House will be more generous than this Vote suggests, and that the Government will give great consideration to the claims of the people of Russia, because in saving Russia we are saving ourselves.

Mr. HAILWOOD: I hope that the Government will not follow on the lines indicated by the hon. Member for Silver-town (Mr. J. Jones). It is one thing to preach charity and practice charity, but it is one of the Christian virtues that we can only exercise and practice as individuals. It is quite impossible for a board of guardians or a town council to practice charity with other people's money. To practice charity when other people's money is being given away might amount to fraud, or, at any rate, might cause very great hardship. How does the Government know, how does a
board of guardians or a town council know, the dire straits in which the taxpayer or ratepayer is situated from whom they collect their taxes or rates? If there is any question of charity, let those people who are charitably disposed, and in a position to give money, give it individually. It is no part, and never was and never will be any part, of the duty of any public body to dole out other people's money, and at the same time wrap themselves up in a sort of mantle of assumed charity. It is more of the nature of fraud, and it is the greatest piece of hypocrisy that we have to face to-day when public men stand up and pretend to be charitable by dealing in this way with other people's money. It is quite possible that there are people who are paying large amounts in taxes and rates, and who, on account of the value of money, and of the high rates and taxes, may be in dire straits, and quite unable to pay anything more. At the other end of the scale there may be, and there are, millions of people to-day who have the greatest difficulty in paying even their small Income Tax, or their small poor rate. I look upon it as something in the nature of a scandal that we should have people to-day who are in the position of being able to filch money from these people without their consent and hand it over to others, while claiming to be charitable. I look upon it as fraud, and it needs to be stamped out root and branch from this country. If there is any charity to be given, let us give it individually.

Mr. GOULD: I have listened with much interest to the various speeches on this matter from both sides of the House, and I must confess, as one who has had considerable experience in dealing with international problems as far as industry is concerned, and especially as far as the Russian problem is concerned, that I am amazed at the amount of ignorance which has been displayed by certain Members of the House with regard to the economic conditions which prevail in connection with Russia. The whole question of this Vote has turned upon Russia. Let us look at Russia as Russia was in 1914—a country rich and prosperous, though much behind the times in its methods of locomotion and the transport of goods, depending very largely upon river traffic in order to trans-
fer to the seaports the merchandise and grain which is produced in the interior. It was a country which had been for generations, almost centuries, working under a scheme evolved through peculiar conditions; and yet it was producing a surplus of exports which brought prosperity to the whole of what we call European Russia. In the past 15 or 20 years Asiatic Russia has developed into a grain-growing area, has developed oil, coal, and iron and steel industries; and despite all the interference of State control, despite all the restrictions which were imposed upon industry by Government interference—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I am afraid I could not say that a survey of the economic conditions of Russia is in order on this Vote. I must ask the hon. Member to come a little nearer to the present time.

Mr. GOULD: I will try to keep within the bounds of order. But I could not help referring to that in discussing the present conditions. We are not in a position to-day, despite all the platitudes which are uttered, of being able to extract from Russia anything that is purchasable. Despite every effort made by British industry and British capital, we are not in a position to do business with Russia. In listening to the statements which have been made as to the amount of business being done by Russia we have to remember that during the first six months of this year the British Empire did 36.6 per cent. of the total export business done with Russia by all the nations of the world. That shows that it is the intense desire of this country to help Russia, and not in any way to stagnate the efforts and desires of Russia to do business. I am certain there is not a, single Member of the House who is not desirous of doing all he can to ameliorate the conditions which exist in parts of Russia where these very many thousands and millions of people perhaps are starving. But, after all said and done, that is due to the Government which they have selected, and they are impotent. Surely that is an example to the people of this country. But we are up against a proposition in this country. We have our own starving thousands and hundreds of thousands to feed, and how can we possibly question the amount of the Vote which the Government has put before us?
It is all very well to talk about these conditions which exist in other countries. We have the liability to regard those at home first. We must do that, and unless we do it we are false to the trust which is reposed in us. It is all very well being quixotic and talking about things which may be sentimental and talking about Christianity, but our duty is to ourselves and to our own people first, and if we do not look after our own people first, and do not do our duty by them when we know that the responsibility for all the evils and troubles which have fallen on these other countries is due to their failure to look after themselves, we should be false to the people who sent us to this House, and we should be without any justification in answering any attacks which may be made upon us when we come to answer for the consequences of our action in this House.

10.0 P.M.

Mr. SWAN: I and some of my friends on these Benches are delighted that something at least is going to be done. We have forecasted for a considerable time the inevitable results of our policy in Russia, and I think, in a very large measure, we have been responsible for bringing it about. Trying to get the people back into a state of health in Russia will be good business for ourselves, especially as our industries are staggering for want of markets. The hon. Member for Central Cardiff (Mr. Gould) says charity commences at home, and I agree that it ought to. if we had not been so much interested in other countries, and so persistent in crushing humble people in Russia by maintaining the blockade which has involved this country in hundreds of millions which were required at home, Russia would have been able to grapple with her economic problem and would have been able to provide for all the exigencies which might have come as time went on. But we did our best to prevent them grappling with social and economic problems, and made it impossible for her to be rehabilitated by assisting Koltchak and the other people, with the result that we are finding that Russia is in a state of collapse, destitution, poverty and famine. At the same time we have not any outlet for our trade, and unless we do something in order that Europe and Russia may be rehabilitated, we likewise shall be in a state of famine. The hon. Member said we ought to visualise Russia, not
so much in the state it is in to-day, but as it existed in 1914. What did exist in 1914? "We knew the kind of government that existed and we did not appreciate it. [An HON. MEMBER: "Thank goodness we had not yours."] I hope the day will come when someone else has charge of this Government. We cannot make a worse mess of things than you people have done. I am supporting this from a business standpoint. In 1914 we had an export trade of coal of 8,000,000 tons. Who has cut that off? [Interruption.] I think the hon. Member had a part in cutting it off by supporting this Government in maintaining the blockade. If we hope to regain our markets we have to do something to rehabilitate Russia. Great complaints have been made in regard to prices. Again we could have done something to reduce the cost of housing by opening up trade, but we were prevented. We could have reduced the cost of mining if it had not been for the blockade. We were dependent on foreign countries for timber. By supporting this we shall help ourselves economically, help to find work for our people, bring timber to build houses more cheaply and assist all the communities of the world, and it will redound to the benefit of ourselves and the whole of mankind.

Mr. SPEAKER: Lieut.-Colonel J. Ward.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Oh, my God!

Lieut.-Colonel J. WARD: You may say so. I can well understand the terror of hon. and gallant Gentleman.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Not terror.

Lieut.-Colonel WARD: I am not speaking at the moment of physical terror. Neither is there on the part of his opponents, let me tell him. It is rather remarkable that this discussion should have taken the turn it has. I understood my hon. Friends above the Gangway mostly belonged to what is called the "Hands off Russia Committee," who absolutely support the doctrine that under no possible circumstances are the British Government entitled to interfere in anything that happens in Russia. It is only a little while ago that the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) and the hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-
Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) put repeated questions to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, demanding to know when the British Government, as represented by the Foreign Secretary and the Foreign Office, were going to cease spending money on Russian refugees in different parts of Europe. One can see in this demand for an excess of expenditure beyond that now suggested by the Government that there is a political complexion and a political idea behind it. When the Government support the refugees, men who, with their families, helped us in the War, and were driven out of Russia as the result of the Soviet Government's rule and tyranny, it is all wrong. The Government then are criticised by right hon. and hon. Members above the Gangway, but when it is a question of an absolutely artificial Government-produced famine, that has beset the afflicted remnants of the Russian people that this terror has left, we are to squander our money, whether or not we require our resources for our own unemployed workers at home. It is the most peculiar form of criticism to hurl complaints against His Majesty's Government for spending money to assist our friends, while demands are made for more lavish expenditure to assist our enemies. There is not a man in the country, and I am certain there is not a Member of this House, who does not deplore the misery that exists in Russia to-day.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Question.

Lieut.-Colonel WARD: Hon. Members above the Gangway, especially the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull, are not the only men who have sympathy for Russia. I suggest to the hon. and gallant Member that within ten years from now the Russians who will then control Russia, when Russia is able to speak her mind, will not thank him for the assistance that he has given, but will, on the contrary, say that a great deal of this help might have been honest, but that it was useless, and worse. The whole claim that I have made ever since I returned from Russia was that there should be, at least, an opportunity given for the people of Russia to have a say in the management of Russia. The people who have been supported hitherto by my hon. Friends above the Gangway have absolutely and emphatically denied that right
to the Russian people. The Russian people have had no chance of deciding whether their crops shall be stolen up to a certain percentage by the commissars sent out. They have had no security of any description, no private property has existed. All the talk and chatter in this country about every man under a Socialist and Communist State being entitled to the produce of his labour was never illustrated to be such a sham as, in this particular case. Russia has been described as a sort of heaven. A little while ago, at a Trades Congress, I heard a gentleman declare that England would never rise to real greatness until she had a Soviet Government, like Russia. We have trouble enough now in this country without imitating a system which can produce no other results than we see in unfortunate Russia to-day.
My hon. Friend who spoke last said that we were responsible for the present condition of Russia, and that if we had not supported Koltchak things would have been different. He had some phantom blockade in his mind, though I have never heard anything of it. The blockade between Europe and Russia is an economic blockade. You cannot persuade British workmen, producers, and manufacturers to carry on trade with a country that will give them nothing in return. That is the whole sum and substance of it. That is a blockade, if you like to call it a blockade. It is exactly the sort of blockade for which you and I organise ourselves, and which we put into force so that when someone will not give us what we want for our labour we refuse to labour for them. That is all that it amounts to, and all the chatter about blockades is stupid nonsense. Give us some illustration of where a shipload of goods from this country, ordered and paid for by Russia, has been stopped by the British Government. It is all fudge. It is all very well for a propagandist meeting, but it ought not to be stated as a serious argument in this House. Then we are told that if it was not a blockade that was responsible, it was the amount of assistance that the British Government gave to such people as Koltchak. I take an absolutely different view. I know that right behind Koltchak's lines, under the Soviet rule, which my hon. Friends above the Gangway favour so much—

Mr. SWAN: I do nothing of the kind.

Lieut.-Colonel WARD: There were nothing but empty markets, but the moment that Koltchak's lines gave security of property, and gave security to the peasant for the result of his labours, the markets were crowded. We had no difficulty in getting food. Get a really honest. Government in Russia, a country with illimitable opportunities and potentialities for trade, and get some kind of guarantee from your friends, Lenin and Trotsky, that the man who tills the soil will be entitled to the harvest of his labour, and you will no longer have any famine. You know that as well as I do. That country could feed half the world. Between Vladivostok and the Urals, or certainly between there and the Caspians, it is a debatable point whether you could not house the whole of the people of Europe. To talk about sending from this poor, overburdened community a miserable £5,000,000 to one of the wealthiest countries in the world, which is only poor because of the utter incapacity, incompetence, and corruption of its Government is the most foolish thing that could be suggested, and I am pleased to think that the House has got ordinary common sense, and will not for one moment. support such a suggestion.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I have been engaged in trying to keep one of the supporters of my hon. and gallant Friend out of the House of Commons at a bye-election and, therefore, I was unfortunate enough not to have heard the whole Debate. I did not intend to take part in it, but certain remarks have been made in regard to myself and other hon. Members which require an answer. I have never protested against the spending of money upon Russian refugees. The hon. Member for East Nottingham (Sir J. D. Rees) will agree with me that he has protested against the spending of money upon these unfortunate refugees. What I have done—and this will be borne out by the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs, who has treated me very courteously in connection with my numerous worryings of him and his office —has been to suggest that we should enter into some negotiations with the Russian Government to get these people returned to their own country under an amnesty, and I understand that that could have been done long since, but that certain difficulties were put in the way not on the Russian side, and the latest
information which we have on this matter, which has been published in the Press, is that they are prepared to take all these refugees back into Russia under amnesty on getting guarantees that these people will not go back to indulge in hostile propaganda.

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I cannot go into that, but my hon. and gallant Friend is not presenting the case as I understand it.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I am presenting the ease as I understand it, but I can not go into that now. I think that the whole policy of bolstering up the ridiculous attempts of Koltchak and Denikin was utterly wrong, but having done it the unfortunate dupes, the victims of Churchillism, should be saved from starvation. The hon. and gallant Gentleman has the advantage over me of having penetrated into Siberia since the close of the War. I do not question what he says about Siberia, but the sum voted for drugs is for the starving poor of the Volga basin, and has nothing to do with Siberia at all. It affects the area which was ravaged by Denikin, the lieutenant of the hon. and gallant Gentleman's hero, Koltchak.

Lieut.-Colonel WARD: He never got anywhere near it.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Denikin penetrated into the Volga area, and on his retreat he devastated the country and blew up bridges and burned towns, and the hon. and gallant Gentleman ought to know it.

Lieut.-Colonel WARD: I can assure the hon. and gallant Gentleman that neither Denikin nor Koltchak ever got within hundreds of miles of the part of the country where the famine is.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: The hon. and gallant Gentleman apparently has better information than the Prime Minister who, speaking in this House before the Recess, advocated relief for these people on the ground that they had supported the rule of Denikin, so perhaps the hon. and gallant Gentleman will give his information to the Prime Minister. The hon. and gallant Gentleman says that this famine is due entirely to the Bolshevik Government. Are the drought, and the present cold
weather due to the Bolshevik Government? The chief cause of the famine has been the terrible drought in a country where the ploughing is done with primitive instruments, and where drought is particularly deadly in its effects on the production of crops. I agree that the collapse of the economic system, owing to the desire of the farmers to get goods in exchange for their corn instead of selling it for useless paper money, has also helped to produce the famine, but I disagree with the remedy. If the famine is due entirely to the Russian Government, I would ask whether the famine in this country which affects 1,750,000 people, who are undergoing a different form of famine, is due entirely to this Government? It is due very largely to this Government I admit, just as in some ways the famine in Russia is due to the breakdown of. Communism, but it would be just as fair to say that the whole of the suffering in this country is due to this Government as to say that the whole of the suffering in Russia is clue to the Russian Government.
The French Government has never pretended that it wanted to trade and live at peace with Russia, but by a unanimous vote it has resource to give 6,000,000 francs for the relief of famine in Russia, though the French financial position is not as strong as ours. With regard to the question of the blockade, does the hon. Gentleman who represents the Foreign Office agree that we did not blockade Russia? When the hon. and gallant Member for Stoke (Lieut.-Colonel Ward) was not in this House, but was doing what he regarded as his duty elsewhere, we questioned the Government again and again about the blockade of Russia, and it was admitted that British ships in the Baltic Sea and Black Sea were preventing communications of any sort with Russia. If that is not a blockade, what is? With regard to the question of trade with Russia not being possible, again I appeal unto Cæsar. The Prime Minister said in debate this Session that we were doing trade with Russia, in spite of difficulties, at the rate of £5,000,000 a year. That is not much, but it is something in these days of diminishing exports and general distress; it is a beginning, and is better than nothing. And that £5,000,000 has justified those on the Opposition Benches
who have advocated trade with Russia. It has brought some honest work to people in this country. I wonder whether the hon. and gallant Member for Stoke has troubled to talk to anyone who has been in Russia recently. He has spoken of Mrs. Snowden, whose book has been so much quoted.

Sir F. BANBURY: On a point of Order. What have Mrs. Snowden and her book to do with the question whether we should spend £100,000 in the relief of distress in Russia?

Mr. SPEAKER: The Debate has taken a wider course than I had anticipated, but I think it is only right that a reply should be made to the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for Stoke (Lieut.-Colonel J. Ward).

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Mrs. Snowden has been so frequently quoted in that favourite organ of the hon. Baronet who represents the City of London, the "Morning Post," and in other papers, and I wish also to refer to the opinions of other visitors like Dr Nansen. Such people, who cannot be accused of being Bolshevists, maintain that the only possible Government to-day in Russia is the present Government. It may be some comfort to hon. Gentlemen who have not yet realised that, to know that the Soviet Government has dropped its communism. It is worth helping. Those hon. Members opposite who look under their beds every night to see if a Bolshevist is there might really look into the recent facts. The Soviet Government is allowing free trade, the free employment of labour, and is encouraging private enterprise. Under these circumstances it is worth helping. The members of the Soviet Government have acknowledged their mistakes. They have retreated from their position and kept order in their country. They are organising famine relief, and of the relief sent already only about one-half per cent. has been lost or pilfered. Yet when we propose to find £100,000 for medicines for Russia we get the hon. and gallant Member for Stoke protesting and thanking his stars that this House will not consent to any proposal for sending more relief.

Lieut.-Colonel WARD: That is wrong.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I think I am correctly interpreting the
hon. and gallant Member. He will resist the demand from these Benches that England should join with other countries in spending £5,000,000. We are all implicated in this business. We are all ruined if the economic life of Europe is not restored. When we wish to send seed corn to Russia and to take other steps which will save next year's harvest, we get the powerful opposition of the hon. and gallant Gentleman. It is pitiable. The hon. and gallant Member talks about this poor distracted country being unable to help. Why are we poor and distracted? Because the whole economic machinery of Europe is out of joint. There are 30,000,000 people, potential customers of this country, starving or threatened with starvation. From the narrowest, lowest point of view of our own commercial interests, apart from any question of humanity or helping a broken down nation, we should help. Apart from any question of acting the good samaritan to a people in trouble, it would not pay us to allow 30,000,000 potential customers to starve. The hon. Baronet the Member for East Nottingham (Sir J. D. Rees) knows the reason why the Indian market is not buying textile goods, and why the rupee is deteriorating. It is largely because these 30,000,000 people cannot buy Indian tea. Russia was the greatest consumer of Indian tea, but now India cannot sell her tea to Russia, and she cannot buy textile goods from us. Our spindles are left idle, and our people walking about the streets, yet we have hon. Members taking a miserable shortsighted point of view—hon. Members who are unable to see beyond their noses—and protesting against any attempt to save our own potential customers. I understand the Government's difficulties when I hear speeches, such as we have heard to-night, and I sympathise with the hon. Gentleman the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs. I am glad I am not in his position. [An HON. MEMBER: "So is the country."] I do ask the hon. Gentleman, however, to do what he can to help in Russia, and I am quite convinced he will have the decent-thinking people of this country overwhelmingly on his side.
Question, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution," put, and agreed to.

Resolution [3rd November] reported,

CIVIL SERVICES SUPPLEMENTARY ESTI- MATES, 1921–22.

CLASS II.

"That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £330,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1922, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Department of His Majesty's Secretary of State for the Colonies, including Grants in Aid and other Expenses connected with Oversea Settlement."

WAYS AND MEANS.

Resolution [7th November] reported,

"That, towards making good the Supply granted to His Majesty for the service of the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1922, the sum of £15,919,100 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom."

Bill ordered to be brought in upon the said Resolution by the Chairman of Ways and Means, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and Mr. Hilton Young.

CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) (No. 2) BILL,

"to apply a sum out of the Consolidated Fund to the service for the year ending on the thirty-first day of March, one thousand nine hundred and twenty-two, and to appropriate the further Supplies granted in this Session of Parliament," presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time Tomorrow, and to be printed. [Bill 235.]

INTERNATIONAL LABOUR CONFERENCE, GENOA.

Dr. MACNAMARA: I beg to move,
That this House approves the policy of His Majesty's Government respecting the Draft Conventions and Recommendations adopted by the International Labour Conference, held at Genoa in June and July, 1920.
It will be remembered that the Draft Conventions and Recommendations of the Washington International Labour Conference were discussed by the House on 27th May and 1st July. Under Article 405 of
the Peace Treaty of Versailles, it is laid down that Draft Conventions
shall be brought before the authority or authorities within whose competence the matter lies, for the enactment of legislation or other action.
The learned Attorney-General gave his opinion as to the interpretation to be put upon those words, in the course of the Debate on 27th May. Briefly, it was to the effect that what ratified a Convention in this country was the authority of the Crown, though, added the learned Attorney-General:
Where the Convention is of a certain kind, if, for example, it cannot be given effect to, without the expenditure of money or the passing of a Bill, then the ratification does not take place until Parliamentary sanction has first been asked and obtained." —[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th May. 1921; col. 492; Vol. 142.]
In the present circumstances, as in the Debate on 1st July, I desire, leaving the question of procedure on one side, to direct attention, quite shortly, having regard to the hour, to the Government's policy with respect to the Conventions and Recommendations of Genoa and to ask its approval. To that end, the Resolution which I am moving is drafted on lines exactly parallel to the Resolution which the House adopted with regard to Washington. It was agreed by the Commission which framed the Labour section of the Peace Treaty at Paris that the special questions concerning the minimum conditions to be accorded to seamen—and it is with those workers that I am here dealing exclusively—should be dealt with at a special meeting of the International Labour Conference devoted exclusively to the affairs, as I say, of seamen. That Conference was convened and met at Genoa on the 15th June, 1920, when 27 States were represented. The British official representatives were my hon. Friend and colleague the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Sir Montague Barlow) and Mr. Hipwood, of the Board of Trade; the British employers' delegate was Sir Alfred Booth; and the workers' delegate was my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. J. Havelock Wilson). The Conference closed on the 10th July, 1920. The Peace Treaty lays it down that the Conventions and Recommendations of all the International Labour Conferences should be brought before the competent
authority within a period of 12 months, or in exceptional circumstances 18 months. The House wished to have the opportunity of considering the Government's policy, so we are making this Motion to-day, because 18 months from 10th July, 1920, would have elapsed if we had left it over till next Session.
This Genoa Conference agreed to three draft Conventions and four Recommendations, which have been printed in Command Paper 1,174. No agreement was reached on the difficult question of the limitation of the hours of work of seamen. My Resolution does not touch that. I am, not here dealing with it; it is not here raised. There is no Convention, and there is no recommendation about it.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: What was the attitude taken by the Government representatives on the point of the hours of employment of seamen? That is the burning question.

Dr. MACNAMARA: If my hon. and gallant Friend will do me the honour of reading the Resolution, he will see that I am dealing with the Conventions and Recommendations, as I am bound to do under the terms of the Resolution. As regards the three Conventions, we propose to accept them all. The first draft Convention deals with the establishment of a minimum age for the admission of children to employment at sea. With certain exceptions, the Convention takes the minimum age of 14 years. The Convention is covered by the Women, Young Persons, and Children Employment Act, 1920, and it was formally ratified by us on the 5th July last. The second draft Convention provides for the payment of unemployment indemnities to seamen in cases of loss or foundering of their ship. The proposal is that indemnities shall be paid, for the days during which the seaman remains in fact unemployed, at the same rate as the wages payable under his contract, but that the total indemnity to any one seaman may be limited to two months' wages. The Government are prepared to accept that Convention, but they think it better to postpone formal ratification until it has been carried into effect by an Amendment of the existing legislation. The Merchant Shipping Act of 1894 provides:
Where the services of a seaman terminate before the date contemplated in the
agreement by reason of the wreck or loss of the ship…he shall be entitled to wages up to the time of such termination, but not for any longer period.
I understand from my right hon. Friend the President of the. Board of Trade that he proposes to introduce a Merchant Shipping Bill when the pressure of Parliamentary business permits, and such a Bill would, amongst other things, bring our legislation into line with the second Convention. The third and last Draft Convention provides for the establishment of employment facilities either by representative associations of shipowners and seamen jointly, or, in the absence of such joint action, by the State itself. Shipowners and seamen are at present working,together in this matter in this country, and they have established joint employment facilities in a number of ports, the expenses being conjointly borne by employers' and workmen's associations. But the system is not yet so fully developed as to provide complete compliance with this Convention. It will be agreed, I think, in all parts of the House, that if a system arranged by the industry itself can be so far extended so as to cover the whole ground, that is infinitely the best way of proceeding. The Government proposal, therefore, is to accept this Convention, but to postpone formal ratification, and, in the meantime, watch the development of the existing voluntary system. Therefore, with regard to the three Conventions, this is the position. One has already been ratified; and two others we are prepared to accept, although formal ratification, for the reasons I have stated, is postponed.
I come to the four Recommendations, which I will put as briefly as I possibly Can. The first of the Recommendations proposes the limitation of hours of work in the fishing industry. The Recommendation is so drawn as to allow considerable latitude, but, even so, any sincere attempt to carry it into practice is open to many objections. Perhaps I may read it:
In view of the declaration in the Treaties of Peace that all industrial communities should endeavour to adopt, so far as their special circumstances will permit, 'an eight-hours' day or a 48 hours' week as the standard to be aimed at where it has not already been obtained,' the International Labour Conference recommends that each member of the International Labour Organisation enact legislation limiting in this direction the hours of work of all
workers employed in the fishing industry, with such special provisions as may be necessary to meet the conditions peculiar to the fishing industry in each country; and that in framing such legislation each Government consult with the organisations of employers and the organisations of workers concerned.
That is the Recommendation. Amongst the difficulties involved in this proposal, there is the fact that the suggested reduction of hours would mean an increase of staff, for which, I am advised, room cannot be found in most of our fishing craft, many of which are partly owned, of course, by the men themselves. Further, the hours of work in these vessels are necessarily governed by weather conditions, by the distances of the fishing grounds from the port, and by the fact, amongst other things, that fish is a perishable commodity. We have felt, therefore, in these circumstances that we cannot carry out the Recommendation in any real and satisfactory sense, and therefore the fair and honest course to pursue is not to accept it.
The second of the four recommendations concerns the limitation of hours of work in inland navigation. This particular industry is one for which it is extremely difficult to prescribe conditions at the present time because the circumstances are far from normal. We propose, therefore, to postpone the consideration of the question as proposed in this second recommendation until the return of more settled conditions. The third recommendation of the four deals with the establishment of national seamen's codes. It suggests that each member of the National Labour Organisation should "undertake the embodiment in a seamen's code of all its laws and regulations relating to seamen in their activities as such." Effect will require to be given to this recommendation by the passing of legislation consolidating the Merchant Shipping Acts. The Government propose to accept this, the third recommendation, but intend to defer the necessary legislative action until the pressure of other urgent Parliamentary work decreases.
The fourth and last of the recommendations concerns the establishment of schemes of unemployment insurance for seamen. Effect to that has already been given in the Unemployed.Insurance Act, and, therefore, we propose to inform the Secretary-General of the League of Nations that we are prepared to accept it. In regard, therefore, to the four
recommendations, we propose to accept two, though deferring legislative action in one case. We reject one. We propose to defer consideration about the other until a more appropriate time. I am sorry to have been so long, but it was quite impossible to be otherwise. Taking the Conventions and the Recommendations together, I submit that the policy of the Government makes a real endeavour to fall in with the decisions arrived at at Genoa, and on the details of that policy as I have endeavoured to describe them, I venture to commend this Resolution to the support of the House.

Mr. T. SHAW: I think the Government have this time, at any rate, taken the action they were honourably bound to do under the terms of the Treaty of Versailles. That Treaty definitely laid down certain principles and provided for certain conferences. It also insisted that where at these conferences conventions were arrived at, those conventions should be submitted to the competent authority. Nobody in the British Delegation at Washington dreamt that any attempt would ever be made to bring the Crown into the matter of these conventions. At Washington the Government Delegates themselves, on instructions from the Home Government, definitely voted in favour of one Convention, which up to the present this Government has definitely refused to put before the house of Commons. In my opinion, that is a grave breach of the terms of the Peace Treaty and of an honourable understanding arrived at. The bringing of the Crown into a matter of this kind cannot result in any lustre being added to the Crown, and it is only using the Crown as an excuse to shelter the Government who wanted to break an honourable agreement. On this occasion the conventions have been dealt with strictly in accordance with the terms of the Peace Treaty. I reserve my opinion as to the advisability or otherwise of declining to accept the recommendation with regard to the fishing industry. I do not know a great deal about it, and as I never speak upon any subject that I do not understand, I will leave the matter there.
With regard to the other recommendations which are to be held in abeyance
I prefer not to speak. We shall offer from these Benches no objection to the Resolution, and we definitely and heartily welcome the acceptance by the Government of the guiding principle which never ought to have been departed from, that once our name is fixed to a Treaty and a definite understanding arrived at and promises made, they ought to be kept. For the Government never to put their proposals before the House, in spite of the terms of the Peace Treaty, would be a gross breach of public confidence which I am glad to see in this case has not been repeated.

Sir F. BANBURY: As far as I can understand the matter, the Government practically are going to do nothing, fore which I am very glad. I have read this precious document, and the only thing I agree with is Article 18, which says:
The French and English texts of this Convention shall both be authentic.
There is a communication from the Secretary-General of the League of Nations all about draft conventions and recommendations of the International Labour Conference. I do not know what that means. What appears to have happened at this Conference is that two Government officials, a representative of employers and a trade unionist representative have gone over to this Conference, and what right have these individuals to go to a foreign country and bind this House? Apparently these gentlemen agree that in the fishing industry nobody should work more than 48 hours. I am glad that that recommendation is not going to be accepted, but there are other things which are going to be accepted. Why should this sort of thing go on? Why should four men go over to Genoa and enter into an agreement that nobody is to work more than 48 hours a week in any trade or business? If I am correctly informed, some such proposal as that was made, and I am not at all sure it was not made by the Government. The right hon. Gentleman does not contradict me, and therefore the House sees what this is coming to and what might happen under it. This very policy is being carried out by a Government desirous of bringing in a socialistic Measure, and impelled by hon. Gentlemen opposite, who are the real Government of the day. They appoint two people, an Under-Secretary and a Cabinet official, who are told how to vote and
what to do, with a trade unionist—we heard a little time ago what one trade unionist thought of another trade unionist—and one person supposed to be representing Labour, who may possibly be offered a peerage if he does not make himself unpleasant at the Convention. The right hon. Gentleman will get up, and in a speech of 20 minutes' duration, will tell us all sorts of things, and how it is necessary to ratify this Convention. A Bill will be introduced, and we shall be told that if we do not pass it we shall be breaking some Clause in the Treaty. This has nothing to do with the Treaty of Versailles, and probably nine out of ten hon. Members do not know what was in it. We were told we must take it or leave it, and at that time we were bound to open our mouths and swallow' the pill that was given us.
I should like to make this protest. If ever another Bill is brought in, do not let the Government say to me, "We have made an arrangement with somebody in Genoa, or with the International Labour Conference," or with anything else. If it is a good Bill, and suitable for the United Kingdom, including Ireland, I will support it, but if it is a bad Bill I shall certainly oppose it. I hope to goodness the Government will not attempt to pass it, because of some patched up conference by people who were told what to do in some foreign town, in a foreign country.

Sir W. RAEBURN: I did not intend to intervene in this discussion at all, because I was perfectly satisfied with the statement of the Minister who introduced this Motion, but after the remarks of the right hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir Banbury) I am bound to say something. One of the questions that the Labour section had to deal with was that of the hours of labour, and particularly the hours of labour on board ship. At Washington nothing was said about the hours of labour on ships, but a suggestion was made that the details of the question should be thrashed out at another Conference. That Conference was held at Genoa, and not only were four representatives from this country there, but representatives from every maritime nation. What folly it would have been on our part had we said we were not going into the Conference at all, or that we would not agree with them. We are the
biggest maritime nation in the world. One of the delegates was a shipowner. We were allowed only one, and we chose, I think, very wisely one of the ablest and clearest headed men in the shipping community—the chairman of the Cunard Company, a man whose name has a house hold reputation. The representatives met at Geneva, and one of the first matters discussed was the application of the 48-hour week to seamen. No one need tell a shipowner that that is absurd. When the question came on for discussion all the nations took part in it, and it was turned down. The only thing I was in doubt about, after listening to speeches, many of which might have been dispensed with, was what was meant by the policy of the Government concerning this recommendation, It. was proposed by Sir Montague Barlow—

Dr. MACNAMARA: The hon. Member for Salford.

Sir W. RAEBURN: He was not Member for Salford at Genoa; he was Sir Montague Barlow there, and he proposed that in a particular case the 48-hour week should be applied to the officers and firemen, with a 56-hour week for the deck hands?

Mr. SPEAKER: That really raises a point of Order. I have been considering whether on this Motion it would be open to enter into details stated, but not accepted definitely at the Conference. I have looked carefully through the Conventions and the recommendations on particular matters now before the House. I am clearly of opinion that the form of the Motion does not entitle hon. Members to discuss the matters which were not accepted. The Motion simply asks the House to approve the policy of the Government respecting the conventions and recommendations adopted. It is the policy announced to-night by the Minister as to the attitude to be taken on these conventions and recommendations, but it does not seem in any way to include any matters that may have been discussed, though not recommended by the Conference.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I believe I am right in saying that this Conference was called to carry out the findings arrived at at the Washington International Labour Conference. If we are not now to discuss why certain things
that were to be ratified at Genoa arising out of the Washington Conference were not so ratified when can we do so? How can we raise the question of the Government failure to carry out their own undertakings at Washington?

Mr. SPEAKER: I cannot answer that question. There may be other opportunities. The only thing I have to deal with is the scope of the present Resolution, which turns on the meaning of the words
the policy of His Majesty's Government respecting the Draft Conventions and Recommendations adopted.
Clearly what the House is asked for is approval of the policy with regard to the conventions and recommendations as set forth by the Minister to-night, and therefore we are not concerned with matters that were not adopted or recommended.

11.0 P.M.

Sir W. RAEBURN: That was entirely my own view, as I said at the beginning of my remarks, and I only wanted to let the right hon. Gentleman know what the Conventions generally were and what they did. All that we are asked to do to-night is to confirm, if the House thinks fit, these Conventions which, in our folly or in our wisdom, we consider to be quite reasonable Conventions or recommendations. I quite agree that the things which were not adopted at Genoa, such as the 48-hour week, are not included in this Motion. Otherwise, I am perfectly satisfied with what was done at Genoa, and that what we are now asked to ratify was good, sensible work.

Mr. GOULD: I should like to join with the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Sir W. Raeburn), representing, as I do, and speaking, as I believe I can, on behalf of the shipowners in the Bristol Channel area, in accepting and endorsing the terms of the recommendations at the Conference at Genoa.

Mr. HARTSHORN: You had it all your own way!

Mr. GOULD: My hon. Friend says we had it all our own way, but before the Conference came into being we were not quite so certain that we could accept all the terms that were laid down. In fact, there were many points of difference. But when we came into the Conference at Genoa, and found that we were face to face with the competition, not only of
our own people but of other countries, who were endeavouring by every means in their power to cut down our supremacy on the seas, we were brought face to face with the realities of the positior., and were compelled to look at matters from an international point of view, and to regard ourselves as responsible for the destinies of our own shipping. We went into the Conference with absolutely open minds. It is true that we were confronted with various conditions and proposals with regard to hours, wages, and terms of employment, but those things were passed over in sub-committee. With regard to the main points of the Conference, we, the general body of shipowners, agreed to accept without qualification the recommendations of the Government, because, notwithstanding the fact that it may have cost us money, and will in the future cost us money, to accept the terms which have been imposed upon us, we were doing something which might ameliorate the conditions under which the British seaman is going to engage his services on the sea, and at the same time we are not in any way lessening our own prestige. In this Conference we have heightened, to an extent which probably is not understandable in this country, the standard of service, of accommodation, and of feeding; and we have altogether altered the conditions for the seamen of the whole world and for the shipowners of the world. It is something which redounds to the credit of the. British Government that, in carrying at the general Conference certain resolutions, while we may to a certain extent have penalised ourselves, we, at any rate, have not in any way sold ourselves, but rather have brought the general standard of living up to the standard of living on British ships. What was our standard before the War? The British shipowner's complaint before the War was that he could not compete with the foreigner because the foreigner could feed his men at half the price the British shipowner could. That has been, more or less, altered. Things have been, more or less, standardised.
Another complaint my Friends above the Gangway have always made against shipowners is that they were part and parcel of a most unholy system which existed before the War and, to a certain extent, during the War, that certain people made a livelihood out of exploit-
ing seamen, and we passed a resolution—not a pious resolution, but one which has been most effectively carried out—which would prevent these men carrying on business at the expense of the seamen. What is our position to-day? If I want to engage a crew I have to go to one of two people, either the Seamen's Union or the Federation. Both are working together under the Joint National Board, and we have no trouble and no discord. We have our Maritime Boards working together, and the seaman is well protected. When he gets his advance note he is not in the position he was in in the old days when, if he got a £5 advance note, he got £1 deducted for cashing it. He is getting the full benefit of his advance, simply as the result of the action taken by the Government during the last two or three years. Speaking for the shipowners in the Bristol Channel, although this must have cost us a certain amount of money—and we do not always want to lose money if we can help it—we have secured, in return for whatever loss has been imposed upon us by the action of the Government, a benefit in the way of service, a benefit in the way of protection, that is incalculable. I endorse the whole of the schemes and proposals put forward by the Government at the Genoa Conference, and I hope the House will not question the sincerity and honesty of the Government in advocating schemes and reforms of this kind which by no means can be construed as platitudes, but are real, sincere, and honest attempts to meet a very difficult situation and to deal justly and fairly with the men employed in an industry which for generations has been treated in a most ungenerous and disgraceful fashion.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I represent the third shipping port in the country, and I have had this matter thrashed out at seamen's meetings in that port. I am very sorry your ruling, Sir, prevents us from discussing the omissions of the Government and confines us entirely to their commissions. However, I have a sneaking sympathy with the right hon. Baronet the Member for the City (Sir F. Banbury): These international conventions are held. This one seems to have been successful from the shipowners' point of view.

Mr. GOULD: From the Labour people's point of view.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I hope from their point of view, too. Delegates were sent out by the Government. The House knows nothing about them. We are not consulted and do not know who represents us. No discussion takes place before the Convention sits. Then we are faced with the results and we are told we have to back up the British representatives and honour their signatures. The system is entirely wrong. I am all for these international conventions. They are the greatest hope of the future. If we want to prevent ourselves being undercut we must have international arrangements to keep up the standard of living. We ought to be invited to lay down broad lines of policy for our delegates, we ought to approve the delegates, and then we should be prepared to stand by them without question.

Mr. GOULD: Who is going to tell them their business?

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: We do not want to tell them their business, but we ought to have a broad discussion upon the matter. We had a broad discussion on the question of the Washington Conference last Friday. Why not on this question? We might have a Committee of the House appointed to go into the matter, and then the House would have some sort of say before the conclusions are arrived at, and it would not be necessary for so many protests to be raised in different parts of the House. The present system is entirely wrong. We ought to have some voice in the selection of the delegates, and we ought to be informed what are the broad lines of policy. I am sometimes doubtful whether cur representatives know themselves what the policy is.
With regard to the question of seamen who lose their ships through no fault of their own through the ships foundering, a draft Convention provides that the seamen are to be indemnified. I do not suppose that any hon. Member will oppose that. When a seaman is engaged on a ship which founders through no fault of his he ought to get some compensation until he gets some employment.

Mr. GOULD: He gets it now.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: It is a voluntary arrangement. Why has the Government delayed in meeting these cases? The present arrangement is a
voluntary one between the Shipowners' Federation and the Seamen's Union.

Mr. GOULD: And the Board of Trade.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: The Seafaring Council. Why do the Government wait to bring in a Bill next year which may be months before it gets a place on the Order Paper and is passed? How do we know that the Government will be here next Session?

Mr. GOULD: Hope for the best!

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I hope they will not be. The Government ought to do something this Session. I do not think it is quite good enough for the Government to ask us to pass pious resolutions approving of this draft Convention, and then to say they will bring in legislation next Session. Why cannot they do something now in this case? Are the seamen who are actually in distress through the loss, through the foundering of their ships, provided for? Are the Government certain; if not, they ought to see that these men are indemnified in the spirit and letter of the draft Convention. If we could be assured on that point, I should be delighted. In regard to the 43-hour week for the fishing trade, I agree with the Government. I have been in trawlers, and I know something of the fishing industry. How there could be a 43-hour week for the fishing trade I do not know. You might do it in regard to tile firemen and the enginemen, but that is about all. Who represented the fishermen at Genoa? Did the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Havelock Wilson)? His members belong to an entirely different union from the fishermen, most of whom do not belong to any union. There is the Skippers' Association. Did the British Government representative speak for the fishermen? How did we come to make through our representatives at Genoa a recommendation which has been immediately laughed out of court in this House? The matter is a little vague. This is an important matter, and it is not right for the right hon. Gentleman to ride off and say that this is rather unimportant matter.

Dr. MACNAMARA: I never said it was unimportant. What I did was to deal fully and entirely and with the
utmost seriousness with each convention and each recommendation.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Of course I apologise to the right hon. Gentleman. I am sorry I misrepresented him. But he talked two or three times about the lad hour, and asked us to let the thing go through.

Dr. MACNAMARA: No.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Well, he did not. On the fishermen's question I agree with the Government, but it is a peculiar thing that the recommendation should come from Genoa, where the owners were strongly represented, when it was turned down on the great liners.

Mr. G. BALFOUR: I am opposed to this Motion. I am more particularly opposed to the class of legislation which this Motion foreshadows. The right hon. Gentleman says that if a system is approved by the industry itself—I suppose he means if employers and employés approve of it—it must be the best. But does it necessarily follow that, because employers and employés in an industry agree to a certain formula or certain trade terms and conditions, it must be best for the country as a whole? It may make for the prosperity of the shipowner for the time being, but it may not make for the expansion of the shipping industry as a whole, or for the general development of our trade and commerce. I suggest that it is this class of legislation, this endeavour to regulate hours of labour and conditions of employment by Act of Parliament, that is primarily responsible for a great deal of the unemployment. The hon. Member for Central Cardiff (Mr. Gould) I am sure is sincerely desirous of seeing his men contented on his steamships and his industry prosperous, but I suggest to him that, as they have brought about such a, measure of agreement voluntarily, surely that is the right line, and that we should leave our people freedom of action, and deal only with broad, general principles with Acts of Parliament, and give up the attempt to legislate for every individual in every industry and legislate separately for each industry. We must endeavour to get away from this constant nagging at each industry and this endeavour to prescribe conditions for each industry by Act of Parliament.

Lieut.-Colonel ARCHER-SHEE: May I draw attention to the fact that America was not represented at this Conference, though it is to-day the second greatest maritime country in the, world. That shows the absurdity of going on with these Conventions and Conferences in the absence of America. Out of all this, all we have really got is the Second Part of Article 2 of the recommendation about the unemployment indemnity in case of loss or foundering of the ship. No doubt it is a good thing for seamen, and we are not going to object to it, but that is all we get out of this wonderful Convention. I do not think there has ever been a better illustration of Horace's dictum:
parturient months nascetur ridicules mus.
We get a ridiculous recommendation about the fishing industry, probably voted on by nations who have no fishing industry of their own to speak of. I suggest that this is a very good illustration of some of the absurdities which have resulted from the Versailles Treaty and especially with regard to the League of Nations.

Mr. SEDDON: In the absence of my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Havelock-Wilson), I wish to correct a statement made by the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy). He made reference to the fact that no one represented the fishermen.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I asked who did.

Mr. SEDDON: The Seamen and Firemen's Union have a very effective leader of their organisation looking after the welfare of the fishermen in this country.

Mr. EVANS: I represent a constituency which includes a very large percentage of seamen. I want, on their part, to thank the Government for their action. The hon. and gallant Member for Hull asked why legislation was not introduced immediately in order to give practical effect to the findings of this Conference? Ii the findings of the Conference are nothing but a pious resolution I am pre- pared to support the hon. and gallant Member, but I rise to ask the Minister of Labour whether it is not the fact that all the findings and recommendations of this Conference have been agreed to, both on
the part of the shipowners and on behalf of the seamen? If that be so, it seems to me that the recommendations will, in effect, be acted upon, whether or not there be legislation next Session. That being the case, it seems to me that by adopting these recommendations the Government has done a good deal towards improving the conditions of service on the sea. The point taken by the hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. G. Balfour) is different. I am sure he would be the last to wish to see, our sailors going back to the old conditions when they served for wages of about 10s. a month—if that—and when their conditions were deplorable. Those conditions have recently been improved. I believe that the findings of this Conference will tend to improve them still more, and the recommendations should commend themselves to the House.

Dr. MACNAMARA: I am very much obliged to the House for the generous reception it has given to the policy I have put forward in respect to the Conventions and Recommendations adopted. The hon. and gallant Member for Finsbury (Lieut.-Colonel Archer-Shee) thinks that this Genoa effort was a ridiculous mouse, but the hon. Member for Central Cardiff (Mr. Gould), who does know something about things on the sea, is not of that opinion at all. I am backing his view of the value of these proceedings.

Lieut.-Colonel ARCHER-SHEE: I have been a sailor, too.

Dr. MACNAMARA: My hon. Friend the Member for Central Cardiff is now concerned with the mercantile marine, and I listened with very great interest to his commendation. The hon. and gallant Member for Hull asked me two questions about the Convention dealing with unemployment in the case of the loss or foundering of a ship. I do not think he understood what that was. The proposal of the particular Convention here is that this indemnity shall be paid for the days during which the seaman remains in fact unemployed at the same rate of wages as would have been paid, and that the total indemnity in the case of one seaman may he up to two months. It reads as follows:
Where the services of a seaman terminate before the date contemplated in the agreement by reason of the wreck or loss of the ship…he shall be entitled to wages
up to the time of such termination but not for any longer period.
Here is a proposal which says that the total indemnity may be two months. As I have said, the President of the Board of Trade has accepted this Convention, but we have not ratified it. We want time and opportunity to amend our law so as to bring it into line with the Convention.

Mr. HARTSHORN: And in the meantime?

Dr. MACNAMARA: In the meantime things stand as they are. We have accepted it in principle, but we do not ratify it. We shall have to introduce a Merchant Shipping Bill and that we will undertake to do when the pressure of Parliamentary business permits.

Mr. GOULD: Have the other parties to the Convention agreed to accept the recommendation?

Dr. MACNAMARA: If my hon. Friend will put down an unstarred question I will give him, so far as I have been able to get it, the attitude of the other countries—of these 27 States to which I have referred. I do not know that I have the details as to the fishing industry proposals and the limiting of hours. I do not know how this nation and that nation voted. I thank the House for having listened to me with such patience.

Mr. GREENWOOD: What steps has Japan taken to get down to the 48-hour week suggested?

Dr. MACNAMARA: I would prefer if I might give an answer to that on an
unstarred question. I will give the information as far as I have got it.

Resolved,
That this House approves the policy of His Majesty's Government respecting the Draft Conventions and Recommendations adopted by the International Labour Conference, held at Genoa in June and July, 1920.

ELECTRICITY (SUPPLY) ACTS, 1882 TO 1919.

Resolved,
That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1919, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of the borough of Dorchester, in the county of Dorset, which was presented on tie 19th October (H.C. 237), be approved.

Resolved,
That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1919, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of the urban district of Abersychan, in the county of Monmouth, which was presented on the 19th October (H.C. 237–1), be approved.—[Mr. Neal.]

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

It being Half-past Eleven of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at half after Eleven o'clock.